Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
MaleficDevilry
Anointer of the Sick

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:23 am
Posts: 335
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:06 pm 
 

Quote:
...poking at child abuse for amusement like a teenager who has no real comprehesion as to the real nature of it.


Self-righteous comments like these run rampant around metal boards, for some odd reason. That really isn't the point; the question is whether or not someone can truly understand the consequences and traumas that such a vile act will have on the victim, the families and possibly even to their own mind?

The definition of a true sociopath is someone who lacks a conscious, but completely understands how a normal person acts and is able to perfectly interact with them. If this is true, then they understand what their decisions will cause, and do them anyway.

You can argue whether it is "true" understanding, such as sympathy and empathy are different, but most documented sociopaths were spawned by such an event.

Top
 Profile  
TheStormIRide
Jesuscop

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:45 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Altoona, PA
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:59 pm 
 

Most psychological research into serial killers has shown that there is a specific, life-altering event that took place in their lives at some point. Can it all be a coincidence that Serial Killer A, B and C were all molested as children? A large percentage of these types of individuals have shown little to no remorse for the actions they've taken and the consequences of those actions.

Do these people actually understand the what they've done? I believe so. Do they see anything morally wrong with what they've done? Well it depends on who's moral structure you look into. By society's standards, yes, killing is wrong, but by the sociopath's standards, maybe, maybe not.

The question I have is simple: Did these life events cause a moral shift? Do those people actually still remember what a normal moral structure entails? Or do they just play along and hope nobody notices?
_________________
Quote:
DON'T GO TO BRAZINDONESIA!!!!!! THEY LIE WITH CLAIM OF BANDS COME TO THERE!!!!!!!!
INDONESIA IS ALWAYS THE YES DECISION!!!!!!! NO TO BRAZIL, INDONESIAN VERY FUCKING YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \M\\//\

Top
 Profile  
Zythifer
RP's left nut tastes like breastmilk

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:28 am
Posts: 128
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:38 pm 
 

The problem is, people are encouraged to believe that "good" and "evil" exist nature, that bad people are bound to just appear every so often. This makes it difficult to deal with sociopaths, or anyone along a similar line such as predators, rapists, ect. in a mature manner that has any potential to cut back on their numbers.

Top
 Profile  
MaleficDevilry
Anointer of the Sick

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:23 am
Posts: 335
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:23 pm 
 

Morals are laughable at best.

I'd assume most serial killers see their own way of understanding correct, and understand how society will respond to their actions despite their own belief system. I have no doubt in my mind Lucas or Gacy knew that they could end up in jail or executed.

Top
 Profile  
Chaos_Llama
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:04 pm
Posts: 430
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:16 pm 
 

You say they are laughable, or that they don't exist objectively- while this may be true, they do not cease to be useful.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:10 pm 
 

MaleficDevilry wrote:
Morals are laughable at best.

I'd assume most serial killers see their own way of understanding correct, and understand how society will respond to their actions despite their own belief system. I have no doubt in my mind Lucas or Gacy knew that they could end up in jail or executed.


Agreed. Even common criminals - those who aren't psychopaths - commit crimes obviously regardless of law. Deterrence works poorly with non-psychopaths, so I imagine psychopaths would be much more inclined to throw morality, or whatever potential repercussions there may be, into the wind.

Top
 Profile  
MaleficDevilry
Anointer of the Sick

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:23 am
Posts: 335
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:32 pm 
 

How are morals useful? A moral is something without exception, yet find me a so-called moral without one exception. Morals are more of a religious idea than anything, and yet so many of you who criticize such beliefs, support it. Interesting.

Laws should only be used to prevent things where someone causes unwarranted or unwanted harm to another person. This would include acts of violence, rape, robbery, arson, etc. Most sex and drug crimes should be tossed out, but that's another topic all together.

Top
 Profile  
MasticateTheNecro
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 9:29 pm
Posts: 262
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:04 pm 
 

MaleficDevilry wrote:
Laws should only be used to prevent things where someone causes unwarranted or unwanted harm to another person. This would include acts of violence, rape, robbery, arson, etc. Most sex and drug crimes should be tossed out, but that's another topic all together.

Well it would be nice if laws did work the way they were intended, but unfortunately it usually turns into a deal of whether the government is doing it's job, which is to protect the citizens, and whether the government is controlling things because of the morals (usually christian) of the leaders. I definitely agree with your post. Hell, a 20 year old guy got 7 years for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. That isn't the government protecting it's citizens and helping them to live a happy peaceful life, that is fucking over the citizen for living a happy peaceful life at nobody else's expense.

As to the OP, I don't think it matters in the long run. I can't speak for other countries, but America seems to have it's priorities in keeping christian morals in control. Things like abortion, nonviolent crimes and little nit-picky things take priority over the important stuff (i.e. struggle at the pump, the war) pretty much because of politics. If a sociopath kills people, at least he sees a good enough reason to (or doesn't see a reason not to). A sociopath by definition is a person who doesn't function socially correctly, or at least when compared to society's regular standards.

A person labeled a psychopath usually is just a person with radically different values than the person calling them a psycho. I do believe that some people deserve to be killed, but that's based on my values. If a person I love is killed I would be sad obviously, but I probably wouldn't think too much of it after the feelings because I recognize that people do have different values than me. I wouldn't feel bad or that I have wronged if I killed a person I think 'deserves it' because I'm a person who thinks human life isn't essentially different than an animal which humans kill all the time or a plant which is also a form of life. So a human is able to reason and communicate, that doesn't mean their life is sacred. Don't think that I support that PETA bullshit though. I don't by any means.

I apologize if this post seems disorganized, I'm really tired. I hope you get the just of my message though.
_________________
http://thenekrolaef.webs.com

livercage wrote:
..but what did the mind actually mean behind the meaning of pointing out the point...

Top
 Profile  
Kicker_of_Elves
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:49 am
Posts: 30
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:15 pm 
 

MaleficDevilry: you do realize that when you specify how laws "should" be used, you are making a moral judgement, don't you?

more to the point, morality and laws (which are really the same thing, except that ideally the community itself punished moral transgressors; instead of delegating the task to an outside force, ie government/police) *ARE* used by a variety of cultures in a multitude of different ways, and have been ever since the dawn of Man. I haven't studied the topic, but I'm sure that in the societies of chimpanzees and apes, there are certain taboo actions of individuals, considered harmful to the well-being of the group, that lead to ostracization- most likely the oldest form of "morality" there is. and what's the difference between this and shunning an individual who has some contagious disease? as human cultures got more and more complex, so did their value systems- but the point is that in essence, in their healthiest form, they are necessary, meaningful, important, and worthy of respect.

what i'm trying to say is that while it is 100% reasonable to consider yourself removed from modern morality and laws, which stem from a sick culture, the concepts themselves are honorable. I think your post got to me because your argument reminds of the snobbish liberal metropolis in which I was raised, where the healthier aspects of american culture were endlessly ridiculed (slightly more intelligent people ridiculed the actually unhealthy aspects, like Christianity).

on the whole, however, I agree that liberal Christian values have more or less completely infiltrated the metal-archives (and that was the case long before I ever joined), but it's not really surprising, and I don't dedicate my life to the site so I don't care that much. but stop to think about the fact that your ideology may be more in sync with spiteful, judging Christianity than you might like to admit.

Top
 Profile  
EOS
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:25 pm
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:42 am 
 

I'm confused. Was the OP accidentally cut off from its orginal thread or somthing? The quote, "...poking at child abuse for amusement like a teenager who has no real comprehesion as to the real nature of it" doesn't make a lot sense and I'm not sure what MaleficDevilry is truly trying to get at. But the topic interests me so I'm going to share some thoughts.

Quote:
the question is whether or not [the child abuser] can truly understand the consequences and traumas that [child abuse] will have on the victim, the families and possibly even to [his] own mind?

I think the child abuser can only understand the consequences of his action on the victim and the victim's family in a very superficial way. Much like the same way I would understand it. I think the thing that separates me from the sociopath child abuser is that I don't have an impluse to do such a thing, whereas he does, and I find it repulsive, whereas he doesn't. The next question is "Why?" and I'm not completely sure. I just assume nurture and empathy.

As to whether he understands the consequences on his own mind, I would say not so much. I mean, maybe he's read the literature about the subject, but it's not something he can understand or know a priori. He'd have to experience the consequences, however, even then he probably still wouldn't understand them because he is moving with the changes that are going on in his own mind. It's like growing. You couldn't know you grew until you consulted a reference point (such as your memory or a picture).

Quote:
The definition of a true sociopath is someone who lacks a conscious, but completely understands how a normal person acts and is able to perfectly interact with them. If this is true, then they understand what their decisions will cause, and do them anyway.

You can argue whether it is "true" understanding, such as sympathy and empathy are different, but most documented sociopaths were spawned by such an event.

I would agree with this to the extent I explained above.


OK, I think I'm understanding the original quote now (and if I'm not, whatever). I would agree that the child abuser doesn't have "real comprehension of the real nature of [child abuse]" but it is not that which compels him to do what he does. That same quote can apply to me since I've never experienced child abuse nor has anyone in my family. So yeah, I think the child abuser has something wrong with him that compels him to abuse children (and MD is right, it usually is the case that child abuse upon the child abuser preceded), and he's simply lacking conscience--a sense of caring--in this area, not necessarily understanding.

Top
 Profile  
MaleficDevilry
Anointer of the Sick

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:23 am
Posts: 335
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:17 am 
 

Kicker_of_Elves wrote:
MaleficDevilry: you do realize that when you specify how laws "should" be used, you are making a moral judgement, don't you?


Spiteful towards Christianity? I have no issues with any religion if taken in the context it was intended for. Age of consent laws didn't come about because of Christianity, and neither did drug prohibition. :lol:

Top
 Profile  
truvelocity
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 308
Location: Egypt
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:49 pm 
 

TheStormIRide wrote:
Most psychological research into serial killers has shown that there is a specific, life-altering event that took place in their lives at some point. Can it all be a coincidence that Serial Killer A, B and C were all molested as children? A large percentage of these types of individuals have shown little to no remorse for the actions they've taken and the consequences of those actions.

Do these people actually understand the what they've done? I believe so. Do they see anything morally wrong with what they've done? Well it depends on who's moral structure you look into. By society's standards, yes, killing is wrong, but by the sociopath's standards, maybe, maybe not.

The question I have is simple: Did these life events cause a moral shift? Do those people actually still remember what a normal moral structure entails? Or do they just play along and hope nobody notices?


Or do they just don't care?
Hmmmm..... maybe they do understand what the normal moral structure entails but maybe they are working within their own moral structure and thus feel justified in their actions.
They don't care.
They don't care?

Top
 Profile  
MasticateTheNecro
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 9:29 pm
Posts: 262
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:13 pm 
 

truvelocity wrote:
Or do they just don't care?
Hmmmm..... maybe they do understand what the normal moral structure entails but maybe they are working within their own moral structure and thus feel justified in their actions.
They don't care.
They don't care?

This. This is what I attempted to get at with my post.
It's a matter of having different values and when you don't agree with what the other party thinks you do what you feel, which could mean 'abusing' someone else.
_________________
http://thenekrolaef.webs.com

livercage wrote:
..but what did the mind actually mean behind the meaning of pointing out the point...

Top
 Profile  
hey
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:41 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:33 pm 
 

Noobbot wrote:
MaleficDevilry wrote:
Morals are laughable at best.

I'd assume most serial killers see their own way of understanding correct, and understand how society will respond to their actions despite their own belief system. I have no doubt in my mind Lucas or Gacy knew that they could end up in jail or executed.


Agreed. Even common criminals - those who aren't psychopaths - commit crimes obviously regardless of law. Deterrence works poorly with non-psychopaths, so I imagine psychopaths would be much more inclined to throw morality, or whatever potential repercussions there may be, into the wind.


I wouldn't say deterrence is working poorly. Before anyone becomes a criminal they are first normal(non-psychopathic), and only become a criminal as soon as they commit a crime. The threat of being punished works on all normal citizens who are having thoughts of doing something deemed illegal. Just about everybody has thoughts of doing something which is punishable under a government, but either the threat of a penalty or their moral values stops them from doing so. So personally I'd say that criminals are the few people who find that what they'd gain from a crime out weights the possible punishment or their own beliefs(assuming their beliefs are against it). So even if many people don't find something wrong with committing some undesirable act they probably won't do so if threatened. Sort of like how a dog might not see whats wrong with doing something, but if he/she knows punishment will follow for doing so the dog probably won't do it.

That's just my personal thoughts on deterrence working.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Xlxlx and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group