GENIUS FORUMS

I reckon those who murder truth can be said to be serial killers. I also agree that ego and delusion and all those usual sorts of things cause violent behavior.

However, it is not always just that simple. Sometimes, it is that simple but not always just that simple. I have long been interested in the physiological or genetic predispositions in sociopaths who murder.

From a completely scientific view, it is an interesting subject. I have read about this for years and, while there are no solid answers, there has been some progressive research.

Kind of a hobby of mine -- passed down from my grandfather and mother and shared by my nephew and one sister -- this desire to fully comprehend the human predator.

Goes hand in hand with my other hobby -- politics.

Faizi

The idiotic baby argument was acually Kelly's. She said that a perfectly enlightened human being could kill a baby with no regard whatsoever if such an act was a wise act.

I disagreed with that. I don't think that killing babies or others could be an act of wisdom.

As Kevin said, violence is caused by ego and delusion and so on.

Faizi

Death penalty is cool.

You know what's really cool? When the state executes innocent people. Even cooler when they execute the severely mentally retarded.

Cooler than that is when they execute people who have been set up by the cops.

Such a case is coming to light now in Virginia. The cops were so eager to make an arrest, they faked it. Faked all the evidence. The entire basis of the trial was false.

Cool.

Faizi

The cops were so eager to make an arrest, they faked it. Faked all the evidence. The entire basis of the trial was false.

Well my friend, if the cops fake the evidence in order to get a death sentence, and if they get it, and if an innocent dies because of them -- they are the murderers. Very simple. And if they are the murderers, they should die, death penalty to them! That's what I mean when I say "death penalty is cool". All the (real) murderers must die. Not the innocents.
Secondly, when you talk about "the state", which state are you talking about?
The misogynist state of Nigeria?
The semi-feudal state of the Saudis?
Saddam's state of terror?
A communist or a fascist state?
Or a democratic and free state, in a country where liberties and human rights are preserved and respected?
This makes a lot of difference.
Death penalty is cool.

David:
Good response. Somewhat convincing. Nice use of friendly wording.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: I’m no genius
D: You don't think there is a connection between this and your praising of moderation?

Well in all other areas of human life moderation is a requirement, therefore it is rational for me to presume that the same applies to truth, although I can see that of all desires truth is the most rational one to concentrate one’s efforts in.

You will never achieve enlightenment with this attitude, James.

And yet .... the sheer intensity of purpose which this dynamic creates is vital. It is everything.

I’m sure it is. What you are talking about here is the consciousness of reality side of things (automatically thinking without instinctual delusions), as opposed to a memory based the knowledge of reality.

Once one has reached a certain knowledge of reality, truth can become painful, and it may well be that I will eventually be caused to seek truth as a form of consciousness. At present however I lack the necessary courage. I know what it would mean to put my heart and soul into Truth, I would forever then have to promote truth. I would be married to it, and never be free to experience my animal self without guilt.

I am simply too feminine to attempt to try full time truth. I enjoy emotions too much. I’m addicted to indirect sadness. My favourite songs are emotional unrequited love songs. I get mildly teary during sad or emotionally uplifting movies and I like this feeling. I must somehow like negotiating the pus-filled channels of human emotional interconnectivity, and truth has given me a bigger safer mental ship in which to travel these waters without deep emotional effect, truth prevents me from getting quagmired and I can skip from one thing to another.

I find masculine views of glory and nobleness to just be pathetic little ego trips. Why should I care if I do not advance the human race, who gives a fuck, I’ll be dead by the time it matters.

I look at Kelly and I sense pain in her efforts to become enlightened. I’ve read your letters to enemies and found pain there, because of the desire to be enlightened. If I don’t have this desire, then I should be happier and I think I am. Look I’ve only been in this truth game since I found Genius forum a few years ago. Before that I had years of mental and physical pain caused by an anxiety disorder, and I am loving the newfound freedom from such pain. To give this up for something unknown, for something you are referring to above as God, meaning something unexplainable, just doesn’t make rational sense to me.

A number of people already have, but you are currently too blind to see it.
I'm sorry if that is blunt, but it's the truth. Your attachment to moderation is limiting your perceptiveness in these matters.

Depends on how one looks at it. I look at this from the perspective that you are not enlightened, but think you are. As I have suggested before, it is not that knowledge creates enlightenment, but emotions. I believe you believe you are enlightened because you a formed a fundamentalist mindset. The mindset was created as a reaction to desire and pain, and an underlying desire to be rid of these beasts of burden. The polar switch from being affected by pain and desire to not being affected, could only occur once you had decided that you knew enough, that you had narrowed all confusion created by interaction with the universe down to a set of mental thinking rules. To use your words “the sheer intensity of purpose which this dynamic creates is vital. It is everything.” is needed to create the fundamentalist mindset because this intensity creates the levels of pain required for your mind to flip into the instinctual protective state of fundamentalism.

David, I don’t expect you to keep tutoring me, it is a waste of your time, but I reserve the right to state things how I see it.

I personally have no need of these men as far as my own understanding is concerned. My wisdom does not depend on them in any way.

Not now, no, but you developed your enlightenment mindset from their ideas, so you once needed them. At the very least they were the catalyst for the rational development of your own Truths, such as those original ideas contained in say your Woman essay.

I'm the master of one thing - namely, knowledge and consciousness of Reality. It is the only thing I'm good at. But I am good at it.

Well yes you are, and I agree you are good at it because you have concentrated your efforts in this area.

One of Kierkegaard's books is entitled, "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing". He despised the "many-sided nature" of the people around him. He recognized that it was precisely this which was stopping them from entering the Kingdom of God - or worse, from recognizing that this Kingdom is even a reality.

Entering the Kingdom of God is like trying to thread a needle. You have to make the thread pointed and remove all the extraneous fibres. You can't be many-sided and hope to share in God's treasure. That is an impossible ask. God does not allow many-sided people in.

Nice phraseology. I am not facing any crisis atm, but when I do, and I am bound to, then I think then I will be prepared to denude myself and may be ready for purity of heart.

Kierkegaard never seemed to be happy to me. He was always full of guilt, always chasing his tail just like any normal idiot. Fuck his words. I spit on them. You just use them because you want people to spurn peoples ego’s on by making them think in noble and glorious terms.

By state, I referred to the state of Virginia. However, state also refers to any state in the US. All states have separate death penalty laws and stipulations; idiocyncricies.

State could also refer to the government of Singapore or China.

I disagree with the idea of the death penalty. I don't think death should ever be an option for government. The notion of death as punishment is barbaric.

Nothing cool about it.

Faizi

Jamesh, I thought your post was well phrased and thought out. I've some comments though.

Jamesh wrote: I am simply too feminine to attempt to try full time truth. I enjoy emotions too much. I’m addicted to indirect sadness. My favourite songs are emotional unrequited love songs. I get mildly teary during sad or emotionally uplifting movies and I like this feeling. I must somehow like negotiating the pus-filled channels of human emotional interconnectivity, and truth has given me a bigger safer mental ship in which to travel these waters without deep emotional effect, truth prevents me from getting quagmired and I can skip from one thing to another.

The truth will lead sooner or later to you getting bored or fed up with the emotional rollercoster of joy & sadness. It becomes then so cheap, conflicted, muddy and superficial that it stops having much more value. Your interest seizes to be.

It doesn't matter how much or little emotional experiences one had in life, if lived through only one of them deep enough, understanding it from top to bottom, one could easily die knowing that one has gone through everything and it was enough. Instead of dying one could also decide to become wise instead.

I find masculine views of glory and nobleness to just be pathetic little ego trips. Why should I care if I do not advance the human race, who gives a fuck, I’ll be dead by the time it matters.

Haven't seen any expressions of this 'glory and nobleness' around here lately, but I'd love to see them if you could give some example. Caring about 'advancing' the human race or wisdom I see not as a matter of being altruistic or moralistic. It's just a wise thing to do, so wisdom will often cause this focus. You will be dead by the time it starts to matter, in a way. :)

Rape, child molestation, 1st degree murder.

Kill the scum off.


---------------


War crimes that i witnessed?

Why not.


---------------


Abu Ghraib type abuse?

Why not.


---------------


Beating up elderly folk?

Why not.




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

-----------

Faizi, imagine you are a father and your child daughter or son is molested, raped and killed. You catch the criminal. What would you do with him? Would you shoot the guy on the spot? Or would you call the police and wait for justice to be done? Consider both cases: a state with and without death penalty.

You don't have to answer me. Answer this question to yourself and be honest. If you choose to kill the guy at once you are not even applying a death penalty, you are making justice by your own hands.

Two more questions: - Do you think it would be "barbaric" to take the life of that child molester and child murderer? - If you think you are able in that case to judge by yourself and execute a criminal, why don't you trust justice to do the same but better than you?

Dear Sap,

I would shoot the bitch on the spot. I assume that you mean that I came upon him in the act. I would not take the time to call the cops.

If you mean that I found out who killed them after the fact, no, I would not chase him down and kill him. Would I call the cops and wait for justice to be done? I reckon I would have no choice but to call the cops but I know better than to think that justice would ever be done.

Once the court/criminal justice system is activated, it all becomes theater. Ever been to court?

It's like a one act play. So many actors. The theater of law does not supply justice. That is why I am against the death penalty. There is no truth in law. I would not expect there to be truth in law. It's all drama.

I am certainly not advocating vigilantalism. I would never hunt someone down and kill him. That is not justice. Neither is the law.

I am extremely honest.

Yes, I think it is barbaric to kill someone after the fact. I would not do it and I think it is wrong for governments to do it.

Why do I not trust the justice system?

Don't get me started.

A few months back, someone tried breaking into my house about three in the morning. I called 911. Two hours later, a grouchy deputy arrived. He said that I must know the person who was breaking in.

This is a small town. I probably did know him. He seemed to think that it was my fault that someone was breaking into my house. Next morning, I went out to go to work and saw that the door to my storage shed was destroyed. Don't matter.

Next time someone is shaking my back door and beating on the glass, I will just open the door and let him in.

Last month, my daughter's ex-boyfriend threatened to kill himself and my daughter and me. He is a convicted felon. Robbed and beat up some guy a year or two back.

I considered calling the cops. But I know what would happen. They might put him in jail for two days and let him out. Then, he would kill us.

I do not feel like being killed so I did not call the cops. My daughter and I would have been blamed for his threats.

Instead, my daughter is staying somewhere that he cannot get to her.

Defused the situation.

When he threatened to kill us, he took glass and sliced his wrists. He dipped the glass in the blood and ran it along my daughter's neck, saying that he would kill her.

I do not trust the police or the criminal justice system to protect me. I do not think that the government could protect myself and my daughter from this guy. I think that had I called the police, it would have made things worse.

So, we took justice in our own hands and got her out of danger.

Why do I have to imagine myself as the father of my son and daughter? I am their mother.

I do not believe in the death penalty because there is no such thing as justice. Justice is not truth.

Just yesterday, a man was let out of jail after he was proven innocent of rape after serving twenty four years.

Why would I trust a system that could convict an innocent man to put anyone to death?

I don't anymore than I could trust them to protect my daughter.

I think it is wonderful that you still trust the system.

Faizi

if they are the murderers, they should die . . . That's what I mean when I say "death penalty is cool". All the (real) murderers must die. Not the innocents.

Except what everyone is thinking is that might not happen. Your theory is subject to the ills of reality, and reality is not on your side every single time. So it remains a theory able to be punched full of holes. That's why some people prefer to do without the death penalty, to avoid that potential abuse. They do not want to place their faith in pie in the sky or black and white truths.

By that logic we should also rape rapists, smash into people who cause car crashes, pump drug traffickers full of drugs till they overdose, and regularly force liquor vendors to drink copiously. Killing is killing, and murder per se is nothing special.

Yes, I think it is barbaric to kill someone after the fact (Faizi).

Faizi: barbaric after but not before the fact? Explain that to me, please. I had asked what would be your reaction after the crimes have been commited and you said that you would shoot the murderer on the spot, AFTER the facts. Not to prevent them, but to punish the criminal.

And it is quite understandable that you would do so, because you said you don't trust justice. So you 1) are against death penalty, 2) you don't trust justice, and 3) you would shoot the murderer after he commited the crimes. Is it right?

Sorry if I thought you migth be a father, not a mother. The story you told is terrifying. So life in America is just like in the moovies... You Americans must live in a kind of permanent paranoia, unless you are rich, and even then...

By that logic we should also rape rapists (avidaloca)

avidaloca: That's a great idea, but I foresee some difficulties to implement. How to do it? And who would accept to be the executor of the punishment? Perhaps a f*ing machine? Or a trained ape? But that might pose a serious obstacle: the criminal might love the punishment...

Liquor vendors are legal, my friend.[/b]

Sap,

You must not have read what I wrote. I wrote that I would kill the perpertrator if I came upon him killing.

I did not say that I would chase him down and kill him after the fact. By this I mean that, if someone was killed and I did not know who did it but the police had a suspect, I would not go looking for that suspect on my own to kill him. Too late for that.

When I say that I do not trust the police, I mean that I know that they cannot protect me. Plain and simple. But I do not own a gun nor do I plan to own a gun -- though I am quite capable of using one efficiently. I believe that I can protect myself better by removing the target of the violence. It is probably only a matter of a little time before he gets locked up again -- on some charge more serious than threatening to kill us. Then, she can come home.

As for the rest of the US, I can say that around my town, I don't think that people live in danger. In fact, it is a very safe little town. Until this ex-boyfriend became a threat, I never locked my doors.

I lived in the inner city of Baltimore for seventeen years and you had to be perpetually watchful there. I moved here to escape that sort of crap.

Faizi

I would kill the perpertrator if I came upon him killing

Dear Faizi,

what if you caught him only some minutes or hours later? Would you call the cops or would you -- besides, knowing that the police can't protect you -- shoot him right away? I think you would do the same as I would -- kill the s.o.b. at once. Everybody I know would do the same, if they could.

But I am pro-death penalty, so there's no contradiction with what I believe. For me, it would not mean personal revenge, but merely an anticipation of the death sentence, in which I believe. As I believe in justice, even when it is far from perfect.

I don't know much about US society and politics, but I do agree with NY state governor George Pataki on the precise matter of death penalty.
Read his 1997 article "Death Penalty is a Deterrent" at

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Pataki.htm

For me a child molestor killer (no need to be a serial killer like Shawcross) is not a human being, his life is worth nothing, even less than a rat's life.

Don't tell me that an innocent can be executed by mistake or by conspiration. Theorically, yes, it may happen. In practice, do you know any recent case in the US? But possible exceptions to normal justice are a rather weak argument for the anti-death penalty cause. True, I don't know a better one.

The whole world needs better justice. To fight for sparing the life of ruthless human predators is not the best way of getting it!

Sapka

The key thing we seem to have trouble accepting is that in any case of someone being killed or injured, they have a right not to participate in the activity which caused that, but they chose not to exercise it.

Statistics on murder show most victims knew their killer. People choose to drive dangerously, ingest dangerous substances, associate with violent or in other ways abusive people, and tempt fate in every way possible. You can't protect someone who won't protect their own self.

There's always culpability on the other side. If a murderer breaks into my house and kills me, I could have thwarted that by having a weapon nearby or an escape route or greater security or any number of things. All people who harm and abuse others operate on this: if you can't pick up on their ruse, or you can't block or control them, you pay. Almost every person in any kind of power uses this method, from a car mechanic to the leader of the country.

what if you caught him only some minutes or hours later? Would you call the cops or would you -- besides, knowing that the police can't protect you -- shoot him right away? I think you would do the same as I would -- kill the s.o.b. at once. Everybody I know would do the same, if they could.

I think you must be representing some vigilante group or other political thing.

No, I would not kill a suspect hours after the fact. I would not kill a suspect minutes after the fact. Too late.

No, the police cannot protect me. Since this is true, I would take measures to protect myself. Self protection does not include chasing someone down to kill him. Self protection is putting oneself out of the way of harm.

But I am pro-death penalty, so there's no contradiction with what I believe. For me, it would not mean personal revenge, but merely an anticipation of the death sentence, in which I believe. As I believe in justice, even when it is far from perfect.

There is no contradiction in my conviction.

I think there is more contradiction in your belief. You believe that it is all right for you to kill without benefit of justice just as it is all right for governments to kill. You believe that it is all right to kill long after the crime. That is murder.

I don't give a rat's ass about Patakis.

For me a child molestor killer (no need to be a serial killer like Shawcross) is not a human being, his life is worth nothing, even less than a rat's life.

I agree with your sentiment. I do not agree that a government has the right to kill. I do not agree that anyone has the right to kill.

Don't tell me that an innocent can be executed by mistake or by conspiration. Theorically, yes, it may happen.

It is proven that it could happen. I can cite several cases where the man was proven innocent before the execution. As far as I can tell, there are no statistics for innocent men being put to death, only those who came close but were proven innocent before the sentence.

In practice, do you know any recent case in the US? But possible exceptions to normal justice are a rather weak argument for the anti-death penalty cause. True, I don't know a better one.

I can cite several cases in the US in which innocent men were about to be executed or who were serving long sentences for crimes they did not committ. For obvious reasons, there are no broad statistics for innocents being put to death.

The whole world needs better justice. To fight for sparing the life of ruthless human predators is not the best way of getting it!

I don't give a piss about sparing the lives of ruthless hogs. I do care about the possibility of a civilized society.

As long as the US continues to execute its criminals, the US will continue to perpetuate and condone murder. If we expect to stop violence, then, we must stop violence.

Faizi

think you must be representing some vigilante group or other political thing.

Not at all. I hate vigilante groups and militias. I am just pointing the contradictions of those who are against death penalty.

Read this: «I would kill anyone who hurt any of my family but I still disagree with the death penalty. There is no contradiction. David»
Where did I find this pearl? Read the discussion:
http://www.murmurs.com/talk/archive/ind ... 36023.html

Is it a "murder" to get the world rid of a Shawcross-like rat? You know it isn't. Would it be a "murder" to kill a terrorist caught in flagrant AFTER he did what he did? You know it would not.

Kisses,
Sapka

I read the web page. Does nothing to change my mind. My personal belief that the death penalty is wrong is not contradictory. I believe that it is wrong for governments to execute -- period. I am not saying that those who commit heinous crimes do not deserve to die. I think it is wrong to kill.

It actually makes me physically ill. In eight hours, the state of California is going to execute Tookie Williams. He is the founder of the Crips gang and has been on death row for twenty four years for murdering four people. He claims he did not do it.

While in prison, he won a Nobel prize for literature for children's books he has written that urge kids away from the gangster life. That fact does not sway me either way in the argument for clemency.

It just makes me sick to think about executing anyone. I think it is wrong. It's not like he gets shot while committing the crime. He had to wait twenty four years. There is something just sick about that. I don't see how the Governor Swartzenegger can live with it -- yes, the Terminator -- or Governator as he is now known. It is more smarmy to think how politics must have had a strong play in his decision.

It is wrong to kill as a criminal and it is just as wrong to kill as a government -- in some ways, more wrong because the government purports to discourage violence. I think that executions encourage it.

Now, I think we may agree to disagree. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. I have been thinking about this for more than forty years -- I am rather old. I reckon something could cause me to change my mind. But I doubt it. Even if the ex-boyfriend killed me and my daughter, I would not want him to be executed for it.

Faizi

What is your precise beef with Shawcross? How do you consider him more loathsome than the many others -- the Green River killer, for instance?

Gary Ridgeway escaped the death penalty only -- ONLY -- because he agreed to confess to the dozens of other women he had murdered. Not that I intend to glorify him in the least but for a man who was said all of his life to possess only limited intelligence, he was pretty smart.

My guess is that there were discrepencies in his IQ testing. Anyway, because he had a lot of information for the authorities, he got off the death penalty.

Faizi

While in prison, he won a Nobel prize for literature for children's books

Actually he was only nominated by a few people. You have to do a lot more than write a few kids' books to get a Nobel Prize. But I understand why you thought he won it because most Americans believe their country is the centre of the earth and no other land could designate who the best people are.

Nobel Prize? I don't know... Not the Peace Prize, I hope.

He was a gangster and killed a family of shopkeepers. The daughter was shot in the face. Why? Because she was there, working with her parents.

The ex-gangster wrote books in prison, OK. Perhaps he could have won the Nobel prize in literature, but the Swedish Academy used to look at the author's personal data.

The only thing I don't understand, is why he had to wait 26 years for the lethal injection? A luxury death, compared to a shot in the face...

Avid,

Sorry to disappoint but it was merely my mistake in saying that he won a Nobel prize. You are correct that he was merely nominated by a few people.

I did not think that he won a prize because he was American and, therefore, the center of the universe.

You ignorant cunt.

Faizi

Dear Sap,

As I said before, I think we must agree to disagree. I think enactment of death by government belittles its citizens and denigrates its society; condones murder. I think the act itself teaches that the taking of life is all right.

Further, in the case of Tookie Williams, his death does not impart a lesson to youth. It inspires them to gang martyrdom.

In the US, the belief that the death penalty is wrong is not a popular one. Everyone agrees that they want to see the killer of that little girl in Florida die. The death penalty makes people feel better. That's about it. It makes people feel good.

It is a form of hate in the spirit of, "feeding THOSE PEOPLE for years...blah blah blah...thousands of dollars a year..and so on and so forth." People feel good when they hate. Hate is satisfying.

I listened to one woman whose young daughter was raped and killed by a neighbor. She said it made no difference to her whether the killer was put to death or lived his life in prison. She only cared that he could not kill again.

Yet -- though she had no attachment to the Williams case -- she said that she thought Williams should die.

I don't get that at all.

I am not "one" with the protesters against the death penalty. It disgusts me to see them outside the prison gates singing, "Give Peace a Chance." I don't cry when a murderer is killed. I don't mourn his loss.

I am just nauseated by murder. I am nauseated by it whether it is a criminal act or the sanctioned act of government.

An eye for an eye does not yield an eye. An eye for an eye renders blindness to sick perpertrator and vindacator alike.

Murder by state is a great shame. The US should lift itself above China and Iraq and Pakistan and Singapore. The US should be more civilized than the Third World.

Faizi

I was merely pointing out that America is so huge it is the world (to Americans). Also they don't have lots of neighbours around like Europe, so they're not a country that mingles easily among others. This is borne out by their foreign policy blunders, invading sovereign nations against world opinion, refusing to sign international agreements and insisting on harsh terms in trade agreements with other nations (including Australia, probably its second closest ally).

Merely, my ass.

Ignorance is ignorance. Many Americans are ignorant. Personally, I am very well aware of the rest of the world and the fact that the rest of the world is much larger than the US.

The pathetic excuse of isolation is just that -- a pathetic excuse. George Bush is isolated because he chooses to be isolated and he leads those who desire to be isolated into further isolation. Serves his political purpose.

Even under Nixon and Reagan, the US was not THIS isolated.

Much of the current isolationism is Christian based. It is my faint hope that the more secular minded will remember to vote next time.

Faizi