Jump to content
Silverwingwyvren

Death Penalty

Recommended Posts

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

It's only not-murder because the man doing the killing has been sanctioned by the current governing body.

Yes the fact that it is lawful is a factor but since most since most people involved in the death of the condemned appear either emotionally detached at best or internalizing guilt at worse, I see a lack of malice aforethought, which is the defining moment that turns the death of an individual into murder rather then a lesser crime. Lack of malicious forethought removes execution from being deemed murder.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I guess the risk for murderers repeating their offense is lower than for many other kinds of crimes, especially those that involve sexual harrassment, rape or child molestation.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes the fact that it is lawful is a factor but since most since most people involved in the death of the condemned appear either emotionally detached at best or internalizing guilt at worse, I see a lack of malice aforethought, which is the defining moment that turns the death of an individual into murder rather then a lesser crime. Lack of malicious forethought removes execution from being deemed murder.

I almost find it MORE chilling, the killing in totally cold and detached blood. Like "all in a day's work" stuff.

 

@ Soullesshuman - I couldn't agree more. Yes also to Kestra:

 

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

It's only not-murder because the man doing the killing has been sanctioned by the current governing body.

 

Though I wouldn't even go so far as to call it not-murder. The term murder is one we invented to cover one particular kind of killing, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
I almost find it MORE chilling, the killing in totally cold and detached blood. Like "all in a day's work" stuff.

 

@ Soullesshuman - I couldn't agree more. Yes also to Kestra:

 

 

 

Though I wouldn't even go so far as to call it not-murder. The term murder is one we invented to cover one particular kind of killing, is all.

Quite honestly, I imagine that most are not able to detach from the situation. One of the hardest things to do is to look another human being in the eyes and take their life. Numerous soldiers who suffer post traumatic stress disorder can attest to that. There are very few who can do that and not be effected. However, like other unsavory types of jobs some people develop coping mechanisms to deal with their emotions. One way would be to just look at it as a job and one that is helping to protect the ones you love along with the rest of society. I certainly have sympathy for the person who put himself and his psyche in harms way to end the life of a dangerous criminal and if it takes detaching from the situation to protect his psyche go for it. I just don't view that in the same light as killing in cold blood like remorseless murderers do but can see how others would not share my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
I almost find it MORE chilling, the killing in totally cold and detached blood. Like "all in a day's work" stuff.

Given that soldiers and executioners exist, which would be better, that they appear cold to the casual viewer, or that they appear to have malice aforethought?

Share this post


Link to post

I support the death penalty. Really only in the case of homicides however.

 

My view is, if you cannot respect another life, you don't deserve it yourself. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
I do believe in the death penalty for murderers. Before they are put to death, you dern well better have DNA to prove it though. No excuse for an innocent man to die PERIOD.

This. The ways that the people are killed are a censorkip.gif of a lot more humane then they killed their victims (in the case of serial killers, serial rapists, etc). Quite frankly, I could care less about the killers. They knew fully well what they were doing. The victims and their families deserve closure. However, if they are not 100% sure that they were the killers, don't. No need for an innocent to die. If the killer (especially if it was a first time) shows true remorse at what they have done, there is nothing to be gained from their death.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I guess the risk for murderers repeating their offense is lower than for many other kinds of crimes, especially those that involve sexual harrassment, rape or child molestation.

Apparently, according to my research, only aggravated murder and treason should be given death sentences... ohmy.gif

 

@DragonRider5624

 

I really wonder, if we as a people are so eager to lose respect in someone else's life, do we as a society, because we offer killing people for crimes, do not deserve our lives?

 

EDIT: Also, funny thing about the 'closure' bit... I have a bit of problem with that, actually. The human mind doesn't work like that, closure can never happen until the families themselves perform the healing process. Killing someone else doesn't in of itself help closure. I don't see families in europe, canada, etc somehow getting on with less ability than families in america in which the victim's killer was killed. After all, anger is only one of the processes in dealing with grief; it is by far not the only or even most significant process.

Edited by soullesshuman

Share this post


Link to post
Yes the fact that it is lawful is a factor but since most since most people involved in the death of the condemned appear either emotionally detached at best or internalizing guilt at worse, I see a lack of malice aforethought, which is the defining moment that turns the death of an individual into murder rather then a lesser crime. Lack of malicious forethought removes execution from being deemed murder.

So it's okay to kill someone so long as you show no malice or planning?

Share this post


Link to post
So it's okay to kill someone so long as you show no malice or planning?

Isn't that called manslaughter, not murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Isn't that called manslaughter, not murder?

Either way, is it right to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Not necessarily. There are cases of a murder of passion.

I would consider that malice.

 

Either way, is it right to do so?

 

There are many soldiers who would say yes.

Share this post


Link to post

So it's okay to kill someone so long as you show no malice or planning?

Depends on the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If it is your job (executioner or solider) yes. If it is a case of self defense, yes. Those are cases of justifiable homicide. "Due to certain circumstances, homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents."

 

If it is an accidental death from something like negligence or say drunk driving, no. That would be manslaughter, an illegal, punishable offense, but it still isn't murder and there for not a capital crime due capital punishment.

Edited by Sir Barton

Share this post


Link to post

I really wonder, if we as a people are so eager to lose respect in someone else's life, do we as a society, because we offer killing people for crimes, do not deserve our lives?

 

It has nothing do with being eager and everything to do with making harsh yet necessary decisions as perceived by us, 100% of us (pro death penalty posters) would rather live in a world free of death penalty and of crimes which deserve such punishment, we are not that lucky hence we support doing what needs to be done, the society of which you speak exists solely because people did what needs to be done.....

 

Additional thing for you to consider would be, if you have isolated yourself so much from the society (as you have stated), dont you think it tempers with your ability to assess the reality as it is ?

 

EDIT: Also, funny thing about the 'closure' bit... I have a bit of problem with that, actually. The human mind doesn't work like that, closure can never happen until the families themselves perform the healing process. Killing someone else doesn't in of itself help closure. I don't see families in europe, canada, etc somehow getting on with less ability than families in america in which the victim's killer was killed. After all, anger is only one of the processes in dealing with grief; it is by far not the only or even most significant process.

 

People are individual beings, each and every one of us deals with his/her issues in a different manner, while to some killing a murderer might be 90% of the healing process to others it might be just 1% of that same process, there is no way of knowing how will each individual find his/her closure but yes most of them will indeed find it helpful (for their healing process) to know that whoever tortured and killed their child has been punished and will never again hurt a living soul.

 

 

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

Murder is murder, no matter which way you want to look at it.

 

Now if someone had killed my son, and someone else killed them, like a man did at an airport when they were bringing the murderer through that killed and raped his son, the father shot and killed him at close range ... if I was sitting on a jury, I would never convict the father for doing this. The scum that raped and killed his son, deserves to die in my books. Why take pity on the killer so he can do it again. What difference does it make who does the killing. Like the bible says ... an eye for an eye.

 

Yes, I believe in the DEATH PENALTY, smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Murder is murder, no matter which way you want to look at it.

 

Now if someone had killed my son, and someone else killed them, like a man did at an airport when they were bringing the murderer through that killed and raped his son, the father shot and killed him at close range ... if I was sitting on a jury, I would never convict the father for doing this. The scum that raped and killed his son, deserves to die in my books. Why take pity on the killer so he can do it again. What difference does it make who does the killing. Like the bible says ... an eye for an eye.

 

Yes, I believe in the DEATH PENALTY, smile.gif

Actually the chances of a murderer being a continued threat to society even after being convicted of the crime is grossly underestimated. I'd like to point out there was a case study for this that found that the science of predicting behavior doesn't seem to apply as well as we'd like to think in this respect.

 

Additional thing for you to consider would be, if you have isolated yourself so much from the society (as you have stated), dont you think it tempers with your ability to assess the reality as it is ?

 

Possibly, does that mean I'm not allowed to speak my opinions anymore? unsure.gif To me, th death penalty has little to do with how I percieve reality outside my room. Note: the way I see reality outside my room is full of people, who are loud and scary.

 

People are individual beings, each and every one of us deals with his/her issues in a different manner, while to some killing a murderer might be 90% of the healing process to others it might be just 1% of that same process, there is no way of knowing how will each individual find his/her closure but yes most of them will indeed find it helpful (for their healing process) to know that whoever tortured and killed their child has been punished and will never again hurt a living soul.

 

Torturing is a whole different thing from killing. Also, the 'never again hurt a living soul' thing implies that people on death row are likely to be violent again, which, as I have pointed out before, is grossly overestimated. Also, can you cite sources for most american families finding closure in killing the person charged with the crime, regardless of actual guilt? I'd also like to ask- if the rest of the world can man up and put their big boy panties on in which families can deal with their family members dying without screaming and crying for blood, why can't Amercan families? Are we just that bad at dealing with emotions? unsure.gif

Share this post


Link to post

 

Possibly, does that mean I'm not allowed to speak my opinions anymore?  unsure.gif  To me, th death penalty has little to do with how I percieve reality outside my room. Note: the way I see reality outside my room is full of people, who are loud and scary.

 

Of course not, everybody should speak their mind, Im merely suggesting that a person who chooses to isolate himself is actually living in a bubble of a sort, the reality gets distorted as you distance yourself from it, your opinions get more "theoretical" and less... well, less real.

You speak of murderers and victims as nothing more than numbers, you tend to see the reality in black and white equations when the truth or reality is distant from it.... Makes sense ?

 

Torturing is a whole different thing from killing. Also, the 'never again hurt a living soul' thing implies that people on death row are likely to be violent again, which, as I have pointed out before, is grossly overestimated. Also, can you cite sources for most american families finding closure in killing the person charged with the crime, regardless of actual guilt? I'd also like to ask- if the rest of the world can man up and put their big boy panties on in which families can deal with their family members dying without screaming and crying for blood, why can't Amercan families? Are we just that bad at dealing with emotions?  unsure.gif

 

Well, main persons of interest (lol) I would place on death row would indeed be sadistic murderers, torture is usually a part of having sadistic tendencies and sadistic people are indeed more than likely to harm others again if given the opportunity.

 

Of course I cant cite such sources, after all it is I who claimed that each person heals in a different way, can you quote sources which prove that what happens to the criminal is irrelevant to their healing process ?

 

What do you mean if the rest of the world can deal with it why cant we ? Is there a timeline on the healing process ? Is there a table that shows in UK victims get back on track after 8 months while in Italy it takes them only 4 months to do so ?

How can you compare two different cultures anyhow ? What happens with healing time in those Asian and middle eastern countries where criminals get executed for far lesser crimes ? How long does it take for Africans to heal from many forms of genocide that still go over there ?

Are you aware of the fact that in most East Europe, Asia, South America, Africa people usually dont go to psychiatrists, its considered a taboo of a sort, so why do we need shrinks if other people can "man up" ? I can keep going but it can pretty much be applied to any aspect of your life, medicine, technology, anything really....

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post
I really wonder, if we as a people are so eager to lose respect in someone else's life, do we as a society, because we offer killing people for crimes, do not deserve our lives?

Conversely, are people so eager to hold respect onto others of their species that they willingly blind themselves to actual reality? So eager to prove that we are morally superior and should never take the 'low road of killing', that somehow absolving others of their crimes makes them a better person than those who don't?

 

While your source may claim that murderers are not likely to become repeat offenders, do remember that is still highly debatable. When it comes to highly controversial topics, there are going to be studies and articles written with highly varying results, evidence, hypothesis that can completely contradict one another. When dealing with something as mysterious and little known as the human mind, coupled with the different circumstances of each case and individual, you're going to find it almost impossible to get a clear answer. Any study, whether it validates your predisposed opinion or not, should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

It's very well known in law enforcement that most serial killers will keep claiming victims until they either die or are captured. A man who is convicted of killing his best friend in a fit of rage will most likely not become a repeat offender, and yet he is also unlikely to get the death penalty. A man who has gone on a killing spree, claiming many innocent lives in an intended attempt to spread terror and misery, may be given the death sentence. He is likely to kill again and if given the chance may try to kill himself. A man who kidnaps, tortures both psychologically and psychically, rapes, and kills dozens of victims, mutilates, and disposes of the bodies and does so over a period of time has a good chance to be pushed for the death penalty.

 

Obviously there are things like psychological welfare to take into account, but I wanted to keep those examples simple. The Death Penalty is not given lightly and is not just given to any murderer. Again, I feel as though those who disagree so vehemently with it are simply unaware or misguided by false information.

 

When people compare executioners to the murderers themselves, I can't help but be offended. While both may be killing in the most basic description, if you cannot see the difference not only socially but psychologically, that sickens me. There is a difference, and while you may not agree with it I hope that you never have the opportunity to say such a vicious, heartless thing to the men and women who may make such emotional sacrifices. They don't deserve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Murder is murder, no matter which way you want to look at it.

 

Now if someone had killed my son, and someone else killed them, like a man did at an airport when they were bringing the murderer through that killed and raped his son, the father shot and killed him at close range ... if I was sitting on a jury, I would never convict the father for doing this. The scum that raped and killed his son, deserves to die in my books. Why take pity on the killer so he can do it again. What difference does it make who does the killing. Like the bible says ... an eye for an eye.

 

Yes, I believe in the DEATH PENALTY, smile.gif

It matters because we are not given the right to take vengeance into our own hands. In that case the MURDER of the man would be on his hands, regardless of what the other man did to his son. The death penalty is only lawful when the civil government is sanctioning it, not because someone arbitrarily decides that X person needs to die for what they did to me/Y person.

Share this post


Link to post
When people compare executioners to the murderers themselves, I can't help but be offended. While both may be killing in the most basic description, if you cannot see the difference not only socially but psychologically, that sickens me. There is a difference, and while you may not agree with it I hope that you never have the opportunity to say such a vicious, heartless thing to the men and women who may make such emotional sacrifices. They don't deserve that.

Very well said. I feel like it was about time someone threw that in here.

Share this post


Link to post

I was in the midst of a philosophical peak of understanding, and then I tried wording it and being politically correct became to much a pain in the, well you get it.

 

Anyway, allow me to be the devil s advocate and ask, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, have to bear the burden or a murderer or socio-sadist when they have already uprooted some poor innocent's life?

 

I'm very aware other country's deal with these things in some rather uncivilized ways, but a "death penalty" per subject of this section, I am to assume is being debated from a higher standard of living area like Europe or America.

 

---To my point, put yourself in the perspective of a hypothetical victim scenario for a moment please. You just had your family butchered, and because we are, hypothetically, dealing with someone far beyond the system's ability to "rehabilitate", let s pretend the sicko committed such a horrific thing while forcing you to watch, or even take part?

 

Can you look anyone dead in the eye, bear your soul before them, and say you don t want any form of revenge? ---Of course not, Buddha and the Dalia-llama themselves could not say that, without utterly soiling the names and spirits of the now dead.

 

Can you yourself, truly be satisfied, with letting that sick man or woman being allowed to live their entire life, even if it's behind bars; when he/she denied your loved ones the right to their lives? ---Honestly, maybe you could. Maybe you do have the forgiveness of a saint and maybe you do have such a passion for life, that you see great wrong in killing the person responsible.

 

However!

In choosing forgiveness, you force the burden of that perpetrator's existence onto even more innocent victims. That evil person who took your family, they will not suffer, they will not repent, they will simply live their days until their body finally gives to deaths natural embrace. They will be given three full meals daily. They will be given shelter from the elements. They will be given time to see the sun, as well as exercise and sport equipment that even some UNIVERSITIES for crying out loud could only dream of.

 

Sadly, this world we live in revolves around money, and all I just stated, that s a lot of money. Worst of all, it comes almost standard with every institution in the US and if research proves true Canada. That killer now has everything they need to live as long as their body will allow, served to them. They don t have to pay for it anymore; in fact, your victimized a second time, because YOU have to pay for it.

 

Let me sum up the way I see the death penalty/system.

and for everyone s sake after all this text I will keep it simple.

 

Criminals are given too much. In some cases, even the mercy of allowing them to live is more than they deserve. Morally, is it correct for us to assert ourselves into the realms of creation and destroy another human being in the name of justice? I can t answer that. However, (and since I am flirting with it anyway I will use a biblical reference) when Cain killed Abel, God administered punishment. Murder DESERVES punishment without exception. The problem is not that we destroy each other in the name of justice. The problem is that sometimes, when mercy is given to the obviously undeserving, thanks to our system, justice is in the end destroyed, and evil lives on to perpetuate itself.

 

EDIT: Reviewing previous posts it seems many us, me included, are being swept up into the fluctuating ideals that SEVERITY of the crime decides death or life. Not to be a brat, but returning to the true subject of "If a death penalty is right or not?"

 

How are we to know? Killing the scum does benefit us all, but as I said, in doing so we are asserting ourselves into the realms of creation. Are we wrong for killing a killer? Are we more or less wrong for making innocent people support he/she for the rest of their lives? I still say the problem is not the concept or a death penalty. I say the problem is society's concept of PUNISHMENT has become soft.

Edited by Demonshadow88

Share this post


Link to post

 

Of course not, everybody should speak their mind, Im merely suggesting that a person who chooses to isolate himself is actually living in a bubble of a sort, the reality gets distorted as you distance yourself from it, your opinions get more "theoretical" and less... well, less real.

You speak of murderers and victims as nothing more than numbers, you tend to see the reality in black and white equations when the truth or reality is distant from it.... Makes sense ?

 

 

 

Well, main persons of interest (lol) I would place on death row would indeed be sadistic murderers, torture is usually a part of having sadistic tendencies and sadistic people are indeed more than likely to harm others again if given the opportunity.

 

Of course I cant cite such sources, after all it is I who claimed that each person heals in a different way, can you quote sources which prove that what happens to the criminal is irrelevant to their healing process ?

 

What do you mean if the rest of the world can deal with it why cant we ? Is there a timeline on the healing process ? Is there a table that shows in UK victims get back on track after 8 months while in Italy it takes them only 4 months to do so ?

How can you compare two different cultures anyhow ? What happens with healing time in those Asian and middle eastern countries where criminals get executed for far lesser crimes ? How long does it take for Africans to heal from many forms of genocide that still go over there ?

Are you aware of the fact that in most East Europe, Asia, South America, Africa people usually dont go to psychiatrists, its considered a taboo of a sort, so why do we need shrinks if other people can "man up" ? I can keep going but it can pretty much be applied to any aspect of your life, medicine, technology, anything really....

1. Oh, I know this for a fact that my opinions disregard any real emotion from victims and murderers. In the end, I believe in this kind of issue, we shouldn't put emotions into it. It'll only muddy the waters with irrationality, when in fact we should focus on seeing clearly.

 

2. I'd have to do some research, are you ok with JSTOR? I'd be willing to offer other scientific databases but I don't think they extend memberships to be read unless one forks over money.

 

3. Usually, a person who mourns for an alloted time that is considered abnormal would be asked to get some psychiatric help. When a friend of mine committed suicide, I am of the understanding that, after a couple months, I am expected to get my life back on track. Also, being that I am an Asian with chronic, lifelong suicidal-levels of severe depression and social anxiety, yes, I am fully aware there is a stigma behind getting mental help. When did I say people manned up in other countries? Have you checked the growing problem of hikikomoris in japan, and the suicide rates of china and korea? I even have a lovely study that examines that suicide may even be romantisized or idealized in Asian countries! I'd offer the link but I think people need to pay to see the articles...

 

4. Honestly, I think there is a problem when someone must insist on death in order to have personal closure. Once, part of my family had to run away from their home country of be executed. I've long let go of any anger I had towards the government that performed it and wish death on no one, merely reform. I really don't understand where someone needs to kill or to see someone die to feel better about themselves. I only understand that, if I were horribly murdered and killed, I truly wouldn't want my family to take solace in the fact my murderer would be killed. If anything, I'd like them to feel happy that I no longer have to bear the burden of living anymore.

 

 

 

When people compare executioners to the murderers themselves, I can't help but be offended. While both may be killing in the most basic description, if you cannot see the difference not only socially but psychologically, that sickens me. There is a difference, and while you may not agree with it I hope that you never have the opportunity to say such a vicious, heartless thing to the men and women who may make such emotional sacrifices. They don't deserve that.

 

I'll only say this one. Check my name. Heart? Kindless? I an incapable of extending such emotions to hypothesized people I don't know personally. I am Soulless. What you are sickened by has no regards to me, and what I am sickened by has no regards to some random person on the street that I may observe from my little window. A personal opinion like that can't really be proven or reasoned with, so how do you expect any person to be able to argue this with anything more than 'I think your opinion is wrong'?

 

Anyway, allow me to be the devil s advocate and ask, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, have to bear the burden or a murderer or socio-sadist when they have already uprooted some poor innocent's life?

 

I'm very aware other country's deal with these things in some rather uncivilized ways, but a "death penalty" per subject of this section, I am to assume is being debated from a higher standard of living area like Europe or America.

 

---To my point, put yourself in the perspective of a hypothetical victim scenario for a moment please. You just had your family butchered, and because we are, hypothetically, dealing with someone far beyond the system's ability to "rehabilitate", let s pretend the sicko committed such a horrific thing while forcing you to watch, or even take part?

 

Can you look anyone dead in the eye, bear your soul before them, and say you don t want any form of revenge? ---Of course not, Buddha and the Dalia-llama themselves could not say that, without utterly soiling the names and spirits of the now dead.

 

Can you yourself, truly be satisfied, with letting that sick man or woman being allowed to live their entire life, even if it's behind bars; when he/she denied your loved ones the right to their lives?  ---Honestly, maybe you could. Maybe you do have the forgiveness of a saint and maybe you do have such a passion for life, that you see great wrong in killing the person responsible.

 

However!

In choosing forgiveness, you force the burden of that perpetrator's existence onto even more innocent victims. That evil person who took your family, they will not suffer, they will not repent, they will simply live their days until their body finally gives to deaths natural embrace. They will be given three full meals daily. They will be given shelter from the elements. They will be given time to see the sun, as well as exercise and sport equipment that even some UNIVERSITIES for crying out loud could only dream of.

 

Sadly, this world we live in revolves around money, and all I just stated, that s a lot of money. Worst of all, it comes almost standard with every institution in the US and if research proves true Canada. That killer now has everything they need to live as long as their body will allow, served to them. They don t have to pay for it anymore; in fact, your victimized a second time, because YOU have to pay for it.

 

Let me sum up the way I see the death penalty/system.

and for everyone s sake after all this text I will keep it simple.

 

Criminals are given too much. In some cases, even the mercy of allowing them to live is more than they deserve. Morally, is it correct for us to assert ourselves into the realms of creation and destroy another human being in the name of justice? I can t answer that. However, (and since I am flirting with it anyway I will use a biblical reference) when Cain killed Abel, God administered punishment. Murder DESERVES punishment without exception. The problem is not that we destroy each other in the name of justice. The problem is that sometimes, when mercy is given to the obviously undeserving, thanks to our system, justice is in the end destroyed, and evil lives on to perpetuate itself.

 

1. Okay, I will say this quietly, if anyone of my family was brutally slaughtered, I would feel anger. I would feel the greatest anger, and the greatest sadness. And so? I have to move on and let go of such negative emotions. Desiring to kill because someone killed someone I loved only takes me to a darker place emotionally. I'll tell you one thing: The mentality to bay for blood is on that, in the end, is incredibly empty inside. Sure, we kill a man in our anger, but... that doesn't bring the dead back to life. In the end, even if the person died, their death wouldn't fix my life.

 

2. There are no truly evil people. There are no 'forcing burdens that the censorkip.gif*** is still alive'. Even if we killed, in the end, it won't bring the dead back to life. Nothing will. A person was killed in a way that makes us all very sad. Nothing will bring them back. Nothing will somehow undo the damage caused to the loved ones. A vengeful and angry justice... in the end, is an empty one. Anger does that to a person.

 

Finally, can we discuss less on the more emotional 'what if it were you' reasoning? I don't think irrational emotions should play a part in this kind of discussion.

Edited by soullesshuman

Share this post


Link to post
Can you look anyone dead in the eye, bear your soul before them, and say you don t want any form of revenge? ---Of course not, Buddha and the Dalia-llama themselves could not say that, without utterly soiling the names and spirits of the now dead.

Actually - yes, I can. I have NEVER felt that revenge would help anything. It poisons more than it helps. ONCE I toyed briefly with the (ABSTRACT !) idea of murdering someone who had done a very very bad thing to someone I loved. It made me feel so sick I knew in my heart it was plain wrong - for me at least - to want that revenge. And I have had some horrible things happen in my long long life.

 

And how do you know the Buddha and the Dalai-lama would want revenge ? I've never seen anything that suggested that.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Oh, I know this for a fact that my opinions disregard any real emotion from victims and murderers. In the end, I believe in this kind of issue, we shouldn't put emotions into it. It'll only muddy the waters with irrationality, when in fact we should focus on seeing clearly.

 

1. Objectivity is not an option because by default you are not assessing things in an objective manner but instead through your own eyes, hence already making it subjective...

 

2. In order to see things clearly you must see them for what they are and actually understand the concepts behind them, all of those aspects include emotions, the moment you look at this topic from a rational point of view and as only numbers on the paper you actually lose the ability to see things clearly because you are merely going by the "Olympus standard" which usually has nothing to do with reality hence is equal to you never tasting a chocolate yet discussing the taste of chocolate...

 

2. I'd have to do some research, are you ok with JSTOR? I'd be willing to offer other scientific databases but I don't think they extend memberships to be read unless one forks over money.

 

Let me save you some time, healing process is an individual thing, there is no such thing as bulletproof textbook which will provide you with 5 steps after which you are healed, everything that goes within ones psyche is theoretical hence there is no ultimate tool.....

 

3. Usually, a person who mourns for an alloted time that is considered abnormal would be asked to get some psychiatric help. When a friend of mine committed suicide, I am of the understanding that, after a couple months, I am expected to get my life back on track. Also, being that I am an Asian with chronic, lifelong suicidal-levels of severe depression and social anxiety, yes, I am fully aware there is a stigma behind getting mental help. When did I say people manned up in other countries? Have you checked the growing problem of hikikomoris in japan, and the suicide rates of china and korea? I even have a lovely study that examines that suicide may even be romantisized or idealized in Asian countries! I'd offer the link but I think people need to pay to see the articles...

 

What do you meant where have you said that ? This is what I was responding to - "I'd also like to ask- if the rest of the world can man up and put their big boy panties on in which families can deal with their family members dying without screaming and crying for blood, why can't Amercan families? Are we just that bad at dealing with emotions?"

 

4. Honestly, I think there is a problem when someone must insist on death in order to have personal closure. Once, part of my family had to run away from their home country of be executed. I've long let go of any anger I had towards the government that performed it and wish death on no one, merely reform. I really don't understand where someone needs to kill or to see someone die to feel better about themselves. I only understand that, if I were horribly murdered and killed, I truly wouldn't want my family to take solace in the fact my murderer would be killed. If anything, I'd like them to feel happy that I no longer have to bear the burden of living anymore.

 

1. First of all - "If you were murdered, you would like your family to be happy that you no longer have to bear the burden of living anymore" that is just one seriously messed up thing to say.. leaving it at that...

 

2. Considering the fact that you have some mental issues (as you have stated), wouldnt you say its safe to assume that those issues are the ones clouding your judgement hence making it an irrational process from the start ?

Are you not open to the possibility that your social detachment (if it can be called that) is indeed the main reason as to why you cant understand what some people feel or need ?

 

 

Edit - Was not aimed at me yet I found it... interesting

 

1. Okay, I will say this quietly, if anyone of my family was brutally slaughtered, I would feel anger. I would feel the greatest anger, and the greatest sadness. And so? I have to move on and let go of such negative emotions. Desiring to kill because someone killed someone I loved only takes me to a darker place emotionally. I'll tell you one thing: The mentality to bay for blood is on that, in the end, is incredibly empty inside. Sure, we kill a man in our anger, but... that doesn't bring the dead back to life. In the end, even if the person died, their death wouldn't fix my life.

 

You talk about letting go of negative emotions, moving on and being a healthy person yet you have suicidal tendencies, depression and have isolated yourself from the society.. How does that work exactly ?

 

You say anger leads to emptiness inside, that you are letting go of anger yet at the same time you claim you are empty inside, soulless ? Where is the logic in that ?

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.