• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Mysterier

Random Which serial killers or true crimes intrigue you?

Manson but I'm not convinced he actually killed anyone himself. Just because you tell someone to go do something I don't think you should be held responsible for that person's actions.
 
The spoken word is a powerful thing man. Hitler didn't kill people himself.
 
nuttynutskin said:
Manson but I'm not convinced he actually killed anyone himself. Just because you tell someone to go do something I don't think you should be held responsible for that person's actions.
Click to expand...

People say a similar thing about talking people into commiting suicide.

I get the logic behind it, but I don't agree. If you manipulate people into doing horrible things you shouldn't be absolved just because you didn't do it yourself. It's still the case that had you not taken the knowing action you did in manipulating the person, the crime wouldn't have been committed. That makes you responsible.

This is a well established legal principle now. Especially since world war 2. If you order someone to commit a horrible crime. Both the person who gave the order and the person who carried it out are responsible.

Another example is with RICO and laws targetting organized crime.

It doesn't matter that you didn't physically carry it out. You knew what you were trying to do in attempting to get someone else to do it and had you not done so it would not have happened. That makes you responsible for the crime.
 
If I tell someone to go jump off a bridge and they do it I don't think I should be responsible. It's still their choice.
 
There's a difference between saying it, and meaning it. If someone is suicidal, and you know, and tell them to kill themselves, you were a factor
 
I think that everyone should be responsible for their own actions. If you allow someone to brainwash you then that's pretty much your fault. The only exception I could maybe see is if it was done to someone with mental retardation. Sort of like if someone listens to a song telling them to kill themselves. I don't believe it should be the fault of the artist if the person actually does it.
 
Like or not, most people are highly vulnerable to manipulation.

A depressed person is not thinking clearly. Which is why they aren't allowed to end their life and can have control of their life taken from them until they can be treated. While they are mentally ill they can't act in their interests.

Having been suicidally depressed myself, I would have had no problem with the system preventing me from killing myself back when I was suicidal. I'd consider it protecting healthy me from sick me.

As for cults, like it or not most people are highly susceptible to manipulation.

I see no benefit, no higher moral justification, no good reason at all to not hold people responsible for their roll in manipulating others into committing crimes for them.

Say you're a cult leader like Manson. And you have your subordinates kill someone. Even completely putting aside the part about manipulation and brainwashing. You should be responsible for the deaths.

In any other system of chain of command. Be it military, government, business. The leader is responsible for the orders they give their subordinates.

Why should this situation be any different?

Not to mention that not holding the leader responsible will severely compromise our ability to prosecute leaders of organized crime.
 
Well in the case of Manson I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I also think people should have the right to suicide. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone not to kill themselves. Of course I would hope that no one I care about ever killed themselves, but at the same time I would have to recognize it as their right.
 
nuttynutskin said:
Well in the case of Manson I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I also think people should have the right to suicide. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone not to kill themselves. Of course I would hope that no one I care about ever killed themselves, but at the same time I would have to recognize it as their right.
Click to expand...


And I think that demonstrations a naive take on the fallibility of the mind.

A suicidally depressed person is incapable of making a truly free choice. Their future self needs to be saved from their past self.

There are countless people in the world who like me would tell you that depression made them unable to make a free, informed choice. And as such, it is not respecting their right to choose by letting them make the choice in that condition.

They need to be saved so they can make a truly free choice later when they recover. That's preserving their freedom not compromising it.

It's just like protecting children from the stupid shit children can do to hurt themselves. Their future self needs to be protected from their past self.

I'd say nearly all suicidally depressed people who recover will say they would retroactively consent to being stopped from killing themselves by force back when they were suicidal. Because they see now how clouded their thinking was and that they were a danger to themselves.

I understand why you believe what you do, but, and I mean no offense here, but I think it reflects a naive take on the human mind.

I often say what's important are the spirit of the rules not the words. I agree with the rule of personal freedom of choice. The difference is I feel this is preserving the spirit of the rule whereas your interpretation violates the spirit in favor of the words.

The rule is people having the right to choose to die. Which we both agree with. But I feel I'm following the spirit of the rule by ensuring only the mentally healthy can exercise that choice. The depressed aren't in their right mind and aren't capable of making a truly free choice, regardless of if we stop them or not. But on balance the vast majority of the time they would choose to continue living were they not depressed, and so that justified using force to stop them killing themselves until they aren't depressed.

As a result, more people in the long run will see their free choices respected. Whereas if we let them kill themselves nearly all of them would die when in the future were they to recover from depression they would not have chosen to die. Which means they would consent to being prevented from committing suicide retroactively.

That's how I see it.

If someone, healthy of mind and not depressed wants to die for rational reasons then I believe that is their right. But your right to make choices about your life is compromised when you are mentally ill. That's the case regardless of if we stop em or not. And that's why we SHOULD stop them. In the long run it will reflect people's people's free choice most of the time.
 
It's a choice. I suffer from clinical depression and have had suicidal ideation but I don't think that should matter. If for some reason I decided to off myself I don't think it's anyone else's business to tell me not to if my mind's made up. I don't think there's anything naive about it at all. (For the record I'm not suicidal.)
 
What you suffer from right now is irrelevant. I'm talking about people who used to be suicidally depressed and have since recovered.

I'm pretty sure nearly all of them would agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to decide to kill themselves.

When you can demonstrate that that isn't true it'll carry a lot more weight.

But I think we will have to agree to disagree. Ive given all my arguments. At this point I'd be repeating myself if I continued.
 
Okay...at the risk of changing the subject, I still find Ted Bundy beyond fascinating almost 30 years after his execution in Florida. His murder trial for the murder of 12 year old Kimberly Leach had to be moved from Lake City (near the Georgia border) to Orlando. He scratched his name into the defense table which is still on display at the Orange County History Center. How fucked up is your life going to end up when you grow up believing that your mother is your sister?
TedBundy.JPG
 
JessFR said:
What you suffer from right now is irrelevant. I'm talking about people who used to be suicidally depressed and have since recovered.

I'm pretty sure nearly all of them would agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to decide to kill themselves.
Click to expand...

Well you mentioned being being suicidally depressed so why is what I suffer from irrelevant? Either way this is all just my opinion. I don't expect everyone or even most people to agree.
 
nuttynutskin said:
If I tell someone to go jump off a bridge and they do it I don't think I should be responsible. It's still their choice.
Click to expand...

You're right but Manson did a bit more than just "telling". He created a situation using psychological and ideological manipulation whereby people felt compelled to kill for him. That made him a dangerous guy but maybe not as dangerous as society thought.
 
nuttynutskin said:
Well you mentioned being being suicidally depressed so why is what I suffer from irrelevant? Either way this is all just my opinion. I don't expect everyone or even most people to agree.
Click to expand...

Well, what I mean is that someone who is currently suicidal can't be expected to have a clear take on what they might think in the future if or when they no longer feel suicidal. And since my point is predicted on that, it would be far more compelling an argument from someone who's experienced both sides.

If you have, well I can't promise it would change my mind, but it would give me a lot more to think about than if you hadn't. That's all.
 
I lived in one of the locations the EAR struck repeatedly during the late '70's. He terrorized whole neighborhoods, I mean...it was a really bad time. SOB was finally caught last week! Took those fools 40 years to get him. Part of how he did what he did? He was a cop at the time. That helped him evade capture.
 
I agree with your post. Charlie was such a bright man. So much of his philosophy was spot on, especially regarding the sickness of society. He truly never had a chance, considering the people he was raised by, the time and place in which he grew up. I don't believe he was a sociopath, necessarily. Maybe. Maybe not. He certainly loved animals, never hurt animals, and advocated strongly for their well-being. I'm profoundly impressed with ATWA. Wish more people would listen to ATWA instead of to the bullsh*t that Bugliosi told the public.

Bundy was fascinating. Compelling. That last interview - profound. A treat.
 
Last edited:
Golden State killer - joy.



John Cameron's theories and speculations are, ridiculous, however, some may hold a semblance of truth. EWE fascinated me, also. At worst Cameron is emotionally torturing the families of the victims; at best, releasing prisoners who have been convicted through a corrupt interrogation system. Work it out for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top