Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

he never killed or tortured small animals, this is a commonly applied theme to most serial killers, to which he did not fit the profile. he was not abused, or particularly interested in violence. his main methods involved drugs and overdose and most of his victims were asleep or unconscious when he killed them. this denotes an overall disinterest in violence and places him outside of the typical serial killer archetype, where the violence is a sexual means to an end for a compulsion to kill or extinguish. he dissected and examined dead animals because he was fascinated by their insides, which would later translate into humans unintentionally. when he discovered he was not born with the necessary emotional or social equipment to create a relationship where someone would want to stay with him, which is all he was concerned about, he did terrible things to MAKE them stay, i.e. attempts at physical control through "surgery", ingesting parts of victims so that they'd "always be a part of him", trophies, pictures, severed remains that were kept as museum-like objects. much like John Wayne Gacy and his inability to be physically separated from his mother. psychosis infers he was removed from reality. he was acutely aware of what he was doing and the intense compulsion to do so.

To claim he was uninterested in violence is proof of psychosis as only an insane person would fail to perceive what he did as inherently, unacceptably, intolerably violent.

Being unable to make that distinction is the very definition of criminally insane.
Isn't it? Or how would you define the term?



Being unable to tell the difference and respect the rights of others is the very definition of antisocial personality disorder.

A morbid fascination with dead things and the insides of creatures is also inherently disturbed and psychotic. Having an interest in anatomy etc is not comparable to playing with entrails.



That is a distinction without a difference. It adds up to exactly the same thing which is some sort of social pathology.

If someone feels inclined to do that sort of thing, it's because they're crazy. People who are not crazy do not have those sorts of compulsions. Or do you disagree?

Pathology is as pathology does. Social pathology is pathological because it makes people do bad and hurtful things. If we are to define pathological behavior as something other than destructive, then what would it matter, what would be the basis to label behavior pathological versus eccentric?

If this is what you were actually taught, then the authors' object was to turn black into white and make the argument that benign behaviors are psychotic and vicious behaviors are not, because:

1) pharmaceutical firms want to sell huge quantities of expensive medication to "treat" non-existent conditions, and to do so, they must nullify the definition of psychopathology as "hurtful to oneself or others" and redefine it more vaguely as "what some people don't like"

2) feminists want to create the implication that male behavior is fundamentally pathological and, as a means to that end, distance those behaviors from their immediate association with pathology

3) DAs and criminal defense attorneys want $$$ from prosecuting people who are very obviously too crazy to be competent (and thus have a long and lucrative trial and appeals process)

4) cops don't want to have to deal with the red tape and "rights" of mentally disabled people (as psychosis is considered a medical condition, with the corollary that psychotic people cannot be subject to arbitrary mistreatment as criminals can)


But I guess you think that because someone wrote something, no matter how ludicrous and obviously wrong, in a book, it must be true. That IS what your argument boils down to, no?

What makes your position more grounded in facts and logic than biblical literalism?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

i think the point you're missing is that it isn't my point. it's the author's point, which has been substantiated by FBI investigative profiler John Douglas, and a panel of 15 criminal psychology experts who interviewed Dahmer for 3 weeks before making their conclusion. the capture and interview of Dahmer by experts (and later Stone Phillips) was one of the most revealing and exciting times for criminal investigators/profilers. those interviews (along with Ted Bundy's and Richard Kuklinski's) have served as the foundation for modern serial killer profiling as we know it today.

i mean, you asked about him and i told you. i'm not sure what you'd like me to say.

i suppose your disagreement stems from, "if someone is born without a piece missing, are they insane, or are they just missing a piece?". i think the first mistake is to look at them as if they were people. they aren't. they either severed their humanity, had it severed unwillingly, or were never born with it to begin with. which is something that obviously you and i could never understand. to attach emotional statements to his actions (morbid fascination) only shows an attempt to humanize his actions, as if that were possible. he was on a plane where there was no such thing as the inherent, unacceptable, or intolerable. unfortunately, in the state of wisconsin, possessing a brain, two lungs and a heart certifies him as human. of course, in addition to a human head in your freezer and a decomposing body in a plastic barrel.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

of course, how could i forget? even if something is so widely researched by an entire arm of the scientific community, it could still be certified as a complete fallacy. you're the type of people who tell me carbon dating has no factual evidence and that the world is 3000 years old.

Saying doesn't make it so. Just because a bunch of self-proclaimed "experts" say this and that doesn't instantly turn their claims into fact.

You remember the Unabomber case? Those "profilers" created a compound image and criminal profile that bore no resemblance to the actual perpetrator. Or what about the JFK assassination? A panel of "experts" sat down and gave a bunch of non-answers, and 30 years later Congress said, "We think they were in on it, but we're not sure."

In fact, just the other day:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18091903

So why should we consider these turkeys' claims credible? Why?



"Good points. I hadn't considered it from that point of view. It seems that what I believed has been proven illogical. I'll think about it some more, try to make sense of it all, and get back to you."



That's a strawman and not what I said at all. So I'll repeat what I said.
Pathology is as pathology does. If a mental condition causes destructive behavior, it's pathological.

Arguing about the hows and whys is at best an intellectual Rube Goldberg device, at worst it's an effort at falsehood by way of dissembling. Whether you want to argue that he was born without human compassion or the world did that to him or he made the choice to do it is moot. He felt compelled to do things that only an insane person would feel compelled to do and then did them.

If only an insane person would feel compelled to do such things, then logically, the person who does them must be insane. I'll ask you again: do you agree with that statement as it applies to Dahmer drilling holes into peoples' skulls, eating them, trying to turn them into zombies, etc?

Or do you believe there's a non-insane reason to do such things?



Then what you're describing is Nazism. And no that is not Godwinning, because the parallel is perfectly valid and relevant. The goal of the Nazi ideology, as with what you describe, is to justify contempt and disrespect for another party on the basis that they are less than human, by redefining "human" according to a totally arbitrary and unscientific standard.

The scientific definition of a species is a group of reproductively compatible organisms (with certain taxonomic exceptions beyond the scope of this thread). You don't get to exclude individuals from that definition because "I feel like it".

Proof being? Back to square one. You compared me to Dahmer because you didn't "like" what I said, despite the fact that I made my point using facts and logic you couldn't debunk directly.

Further proof: the motives of the people who wrote that textbook, for all the reasons I described. They want to do things that don't make sense except from a standpoint of self-interest, so naturally, in order to sell their nonsense as sensible on the basis of science or common interest, there are some inconvenient facts in the way, which need to be written off.

The comparison between myself and Dahmer is obviously a false one, even according to your own definitions. Clearly, I have the capacity to empathize with others and do all the other things Dahmer couldn't do, and just as clearly, I'm not in the business of butchering random people. Therefore, the comparison is invalid.

The only constant in both cases, is that you, or other people, want to pretend people aren't human, according to your own totally arbitrary and incidental preference because - and this is why it is a form of Nazism - because you want to defend a world view that is totally bigoted and illogical.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning or is there not?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

What does "widely researched" even mean? And how does that term imply a viewpoint is more credible? I'm pretty sure the Bible is more heavily researched by religious students than your criminal pathology stuff, does that mean it's proportionately more credible? If not, why?

Calling a bunch of arbitrary claims scientific doesn't make them scientific any more than putting a cartoony picture of the Earth on a Dixie cup makes it environmentally friendly.

Both are case studies in a fundamentally human behavior called fetishism - the use of magic words and symbols to act as a ward against doubt and fear, with the belief that said words and symbols are causally effective.

This behavior is profoundly ingrained in the human character.

Throwing around the word "SCIENCE" or painting everything blue and green is no different than previous generations throwing around words like "HONOR" or painting crosses on everything. Both are cases of using magic words and symbols to make nonsense seem reasonable.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

i submit! science is wrong! also i seem to have struck a nerve with that comment. it was just a joke implying that you are further removed from your humanity than the majority of folks. if you were offended, i apologize. i suppose telling you to turn off your "jeffrey dahmer switch" would imply more that you shared characteristics with a serial killer vs. your garden variety dehumanized individual. it was not my intention to insinuate you share the properties of a murderer, more so a robot.

bad analogy.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I pointed out why pretty much everything you said was completely wrong. I didn't bring my own emotions into it, just facts and logic. Presumably you took offense at this.

I'm not offended because I have no stake in the issue. I'm not passionate about a stupid TV serial. That said, I can't see any reason to make a baseless comparison between someone and a psychotic serial killer other than to do offense. After all: you still haven't explained why you think I'm "dehumanized" other than "you think TV is stupid, so you must be some sort of robot".

If I were to be offended, as you apparently are, it would most likely be because of an inconvenient truth. As you have not provided any "truths", let alone ones inconvenient to me, there's not much reason for me to be offended, now is there?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.