Sociopath Community

It would be petty for the law to suggest it's okay to kill someone because you were stupid and they tricked you.

It's not because "you were stupid and they tricked you" it's because you were a victim of a psychological attack with grave consequences.

.It's faulty to accept things at face value. In any case the murder would have to be done in secret which is another red flag, doing it openly is also foolish. The manipulated will be guilty. Even in Satanism the only sin is being stupid.

So what if it's faulty? Innocent people do a lot of faulty things. Should a 3 year old be considered evil for accidentally shooting their father in the face?

On the basis that I messed up and was fooled into killing someone ? That's some unexplored territory I doubt I'll ever have to confront in this lifetime. It's so dumb I'd probably be more angry with myself, but yes, I'd be incredibly irritated with my manipulator, and whatever I do it'll happen soon and last very long. 

Now you get it.

But damn, it's best not to be stupid to begin with, and the anger projected at them, should be aimed at the self for being a moron. I really have no gut reaction to the thought of this, nor can I begin to sympathize with someone who'd be fooled to do something like that, then place blame elsewhere. 

Part of sympathy is realizing the differences in human beings, you kinda disregard that. Why not sympathize with those you deem "stupid"? Is it somehow morally wrong to you?

I'd probably have a panic attack, and the thought of the manipulator would potentially cause heart failure. I would have to breath and clear my head the best I can, then when I get it together, I'd go stab the fucker. At least, that's what would come to mind while I'm overwhelmed with how dunce I've been.

You may be overwhelmed, but you'd still be infuriated with the manipulator (as you said earlier).

I've visited some pretty dark places in my lifetime. I've been deceived, and when people try to deceive me, I can spot it. And I mean seriously, there are people who never matured, and think their tricks and tactics can work, and they insist things to support the things they wish you to believe, without evidence.

Well, not everyone has the power to spot these things.

Imagine watching someone learn the hard way, then they spiral out of control and start acting like an animal toward their aggressor. To be honest I don't know if I can convey to you how that looks to me, but it's something I avoid becoming. It's the way down.

Not trying to sound like an angel, but Instead of seeking satisfaction from enraged revenge, why not take responsibility for being deceived ? It's possible to do I assure you. It's when we do that, the imperfections and the errors become valuable to our grander self, and we even feel better, instead of carrying the torment for the rest of our lives. When it's all better, you can strangle them to death if you want to. You'll have to do something about them, it's too much trouble.

Most people don't expect something so tragic to happen. That's on the same level as asking someone for taking responsibility of being randomly assaulted on the street.

What have you gotten yourself into for you to ask these questions ?

Nothing, I am capable of abstract curiosities.

Like a hypnotic possession ?

Are you trying to be cute?

Don't make me laugh by comparing adults to toddlers. When as you say, "innocent people" do faulty things. They must take responsibility for it even when they cross the line.

They can take responsibility without harsh consequences that should come to a wicked person.

I can sympathize with stupid people too, but not for any reason. Not for this reason either. I already know better, and would have something to tell them for their learning. Is it morally wrong for me to sympathize with a case like this ? Of course. I'd be letting myself down to what appears to be a lost cause when It's already simple to me.

So the person is really less deserving of sympathy for this reason?

It's a developed ability I think anyone can acquire simply for spotting a need for it, and not easily trusting prosecutors. 

But not everyone has acquired it, and a person doesn't deserve to suffer just because of it.

Nothing wrong with securing ones sanity by taking the steps to resist calamity. By no means is that asking to be taken advantage of.

I meant "asking someone for taking responsibility for being randomly assaulted on the street". You caught it after the edit.

If you're looking for justified fury, look no further than self defense. I once knew a guy who was assaulted by 2 men, they put a knife in his back. The fact one of his attackers ended up crippled and the other severely beaten meant nothing to the law. He could have killed them and got away with it, because the knife wound was evidence enough.

There was another case in my city, where a gunman opened fire in a downtown shopping mall, 5 injured and 2 dead.  The gunman was attacked in the past, stabbed up and miraculously survived and recovered. It's understandable why someone who experienced a well executed attempted murder would walk with a concealed weapon.

His mistake was acting on impulse when he saw his attackers in the shopping mall. Due to multiple infractions, the court shunned his side of the story,  instead of being omitted to a mental facility, now he's doing 30 years to life, which is hardcore compared to our Caribana shooter, who only got 5 years, and got out sooner.

I'm not looking for anything, just curious about everyone's answers to these questions.

It would be petty for the law to suggest it's okay to kill someone because you were stupid and they tricked you.

"It's not because "you were stupid and they tricked you" it's because you were a victim of a psychological attack."

Like a hypnotic possession ?

.

It's faulty to accept things at face value. In any case the murder would have to be done in secret which is another red flag, doing it openly is also foolish. The manipulated will be guilty. Even in Satanism the only sin is being stupid.

"So what if it's faulty? Innocent people do a lot of faulty things. Should a 3 year old be considered evil for accidentally shooting their father in the face?"

Don't make me laugh by comparing adults to toddlers. When as you say, "innocent people" do faulty things. They must take responsibility for it even when they cross the line.

.

.

"Part of sympathy is realizes the differences in human beings, you kinda disregard that. Why not sympathize with those you deem "stupid"? Is it somehow morally wrong to you?"

I can sympathize with stupid people too, but not for any reason. Not for this reason either. I already know better, and would have something to tell them for their learning. Is it morally wrong for me to sympathize with a case like this ? Of course. I'd be letting myself down to what appears to be a lost cause when It's already simple to me.

.

.

I've visited some pretty dark places in my lifetime. I've been deceived, and when people try to deceive me, I can spot it. And I mean seriously, there are people who never matured, and think their tricks and tactics can work, and they insist things to support the things they wish you to believe, without evidence.

"Well, not everyone has the power to spot these things."

It's a developed ability I think anyone can acquire simply for spotting a need for it, and not easily trusting prosecutors. 

.

.

Imagine watching someone learn the hard way, then they spiral out of control and start acting like an animal toward their aggressor. To be honest I don't know if I can convey to you how that looks to me, but it's something I avoid becoming. It's the way down.

Not trying to sound like an angel, but Instead of seeking satisfaction from enraged revenge, why not take responsibility for being deceived ? It's possible to do I assure you. It's when we do that, the imperfections and the errors become valuable to our grander self, and we even feel better, instead of carrying the torment for the rest of our lives. When it's all better, you can strangle them to death if you want to. You'll have to do something about them, it's too much trouble.

"Most people don't expect something so tragic to happen. That's on the same level as asking someone for taking advantage of being randomly assaulted on the street."

Nothing wrong with securing ones sanity by taking the steps to resist calamity. By no means is that asking to be taken advantage of.

What have you gotten yourself into for you to ask these questions ?

"Nothing, I am capable of abstract curiosities."

If you're looking for justified fury, look no further than self defense. I once knew a guy who was assaulted by 2 men, they put a knife in his back. The fact one of his attackers ended up crippled and the other severely beaten meant nothing to the law. He could have killed them and got away with it, because the knife wound was evidence enough.

There was another case in my city, where a gunman opened fire in a downtown shopping mall, 5 injured and 2 dead.  The gunman was attacked in the past, stabbed up and miraculously survived and recovered. It's understandable why someone who experienced a well executed attempted murder would walk with a concealed weapon.

His mistake was acting on impulse when he saw his attackers in the shopping mall. Due to multiple infractions, the court shunned his side of the story,  instead of being omitted to a mental facility, now he's doing 30 years to life, which is hardcore compared to our Caribana shooter, who only got 5 years, and got out sooner.

Your question was: "Do you think it should be legal to kill someone that tricks you into doing something?"

That wasn't the only question. I just thought you were adjusting the third question I asked. 

My answer was no, because in reality people make misjudgments with disastrous consequences. How do your hypotheticals change that in any way?

But in my first  question, the person really was tricked and there was no misjudgment involved. I didn't ask about killing someone you THOUGHT tricked you into doing something. I asked about killing someone that tricked you into doing something. lol.

No, because she broke the law. She should have brought the crime to the attention of authorities.

How is it different from killing someone in self defense? People that knowingly transmit HIV are often charged with murder.

"The question wasn't if a woman THOUGHT she got HIV, it was if she DID get HIV. Stay true to the hypothetical."

Your question was: "Do you think it should be legal to kill someone that tricks you into doing something?" My answer was no, because in reality people make misjudgments with disastrous consequences. How do your hypotheticals change that in any way?

"Why not? To the last question. If the court takes her situation into consideration and decides she isn't in the wrong, would you think her actions should be legal then?"

No, because she broke the law. She should have brought the crime to the attention of authorities.

"There is no devil who causes misery, only man's devilish ways that creates suffering."

It already more or less is?

"Daniella, you mustn't waste time on sox, and Freyja and shit."
Pretty sure Freyja isn't Daniella last time I checked.

Either that or you're just saying she's a waste of time in general, which is interesting when she's chosen to agree with your side.

Wow, I'm finding myself agreeing with Spatial, that's how retarded this thread is. 

Cool, that's your opinion.

Fuck what's 'legal' - law and morality are two different things even for ppl who believe in law. 

What does that statement have to do with my question?

The first one, if the fella was dead then killing the manipulator isn't gonna bring him back, so what's the point?

One could make the same argument against legal capital punishment.

What's done is done and I'm not sure it'd make me mad enough to get revenge in that way unless it had affected my life badly. I'd be more likely to say, ok well played. 

Well, that's you.

The second one, yeah, if you give me HIV deliberately, or even not deliberately, you're gonna die a bad death and not from AIDS.

So, the thread is so retarded, yet you agree with that bit? XD

On this, I think there will be some concession.  (Perhaps SM takes it as a false agreement, insulted at the deception.  There may lurk hypocrisy in the guise of irony in that...)