Not nessisairly. Being Criminally insane means you don't realize your actions are wrong. People are perfectly capable of knowing that and killing people anyway. Like Geoffery Dahmer who claimed he knew it was wrong but figured there was no god, so why not kill people.
Geoffrey Dahmer? Don't you mean the gay guy who killed other gay men because his fundementalist religious parents taught him to be self hating and to hate homosexuals? I googled him and nothing regarding him killing people 'because there was no god' is mentioned.
Then you probably didn't google very hard.... I mean... straight from the horses mouth on this one...
Heck, the way they seem to state it, they weren't very relgious at all, and his father was an atheist for many years.
That entire segment seems like an ad for born again christians. LOL
BTW, why was a schizophrenicput in the same facility as the non-insane killers? Doesn't seem like a good ideea for anyone (and we know how it turned out).
Yeah, more or less does. Hey, people use religion as a justification to kill, so it should be no surprise that atheism also would be used as such.
His thinking did have SOME logic to it, except for the one thing he overlooked, that he could have been caught... and the reason to do it would be to not go to jail. Though I guess if you look at it from a particularly nihilistic view, if there is no afterlife, then living a short "fufilled" life would be better... but then the deeper question would be... why live at all?
As for why he was put in the same jail... got me. If I had to guess, i'd say killers like him aren't exactly common.
Not nessisairly. Being Criminally insane means you don't realize your actions are wrong. People are perfectly capable of knowing that and killing people anyway. Like Geoffery Dahmer who claimed he knew it was wrong but figured there was no god, so why not kill people.
Geoffrey Dahmer? Don't you mean the gay guy who killed other gay men because his fundementalist religious parents taught him to be self hating and to hate homosexuals? I googled him and nothing regarding him killing people 'because there was no god' is mentioned.
Then you probably didn't google very hard.... I mean... straight from the horses mouth on this one...
Heck, the way they seem to state it, they weren't very relgious at all, and his father was an atheist for many years.
That entire segment seems like an ad for born again christians. LOL
BTW, why was a schizophrenicput in the same facility as the non-insane killers? Doesn't seem like a good ideea for anyone (and we know how it turned out).
Yeah, more or less does. Hey, people use religion as a justification to kill, so it should be no surprise that atheism also would be used as such.
His thinking did have SOME logic to it, except for the one thing he overlooked, that he could have been caught... and the reason to do it would be to not go to jail. Though I guess if you look at it from a particularly nihilistic view, if there is no afterlife, then living a short "fufilled" life would be better... but then the deeper question would be... why live at all?
As for why he was put in the same jail... got me. If I had to guess, i'd say killers like him aren't exactly common.
You missed my edited post, and the pathological liar part (plus the link I provided).
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
Not nessisairly. Being Criminally insane means you don't realize your actions are wrong. People are perfectly capable of knowing that and killing people anyway. Like Geoffery Dahmer who claimed he knew it was wrong but figured there was no god, so why not kill people.
Geoffrey Dahmer? Don't you mean the gay guy who killed other gay men because his fundementalist religious parents taught him to be self hating and to hate homosexuals? I googled him and nothing regarding him killing people 'because there was no god' is mentioned.
Then you probably didn't google very hard.... I mean... straight from the horses mouth on this one...
Heck, the way they seem to state it, they weren't very relgious at all, and his father was an atheist for many years.
That entire segment seems like an ad for born again christians. LOL
BTW, why was a schizophrenicput in the same facility as the non-insane killers? Doesn't seem like a good ideea for anyone (and we know how it turned out).
Yeah, more or less does. Hey, people use religion as a justification to kill, so it should be no surprise that atheism also would be used as such.
His thinking did have SOME logic to it, except for the one thing he overlooked, that he could have been caught... and the reason to do it would be to not go to jail. Though I guess if you look at it from a particularly nihilistic view, if there is no afterlife, then living a short "fufilled" life would be better... but then the deeper question would be... why live at all?
As for why he was put in the same jail... got me. If I had to guess, i'd say killers like him aren't exactly common.
You missed my edited post, and the pathological liar part (plus the link I provided).
Which largely doesn't really gel, based on the fact that his family wasn't that religious for a large part of his life.
As for Pathological lying... it depends on how you define it. In this case it was being used as "He lies repeatidly to get what he wants." Which could be said of any number of people. For example people addicted to perscription drugs who constantly go doctor shopping to get their fix.
In this case there was no insentive to lie. In fact he ended up owning up for what the psyciatrist says he was lying about.
As for the diagnosis... I'm not sure if you missed this in another thread recently, but actually diagnosing a patient's motivations is actually is something you tend to not want to do because it's largely a guess and can cause negative effects. Remember the whole DID/Sybil discussion? It didn't really matter in this case, since it's a court case and really how much more fucked up could the guy get? However, it's foolish to treat a psychological evaluation as a medical doctor's evaluration, and even they aren't spot on all the time.
Hell, considering they needed that doctor to testify you can gurantee the defense had a psychologist that argued the exact opposite... depending on how many psycolgoists testified you can gurantee there was way more then one diagnosis.
EDIT: Yep, LOTS of conflicting diagnoses.... plenty without religious or homosexual overtones. This article kinda explains the insanity or what happens in an insanity trial. It's just a matter of who has the more convincing experts.
Which largely doesn't really gel, based on the fact that his family wasn't that religious for a large part of his life.
As for Pathological lying... it depends on how you define it. In this case it was being used as "He lies repeatidly to get what he wants." Which could be said of any number of people. For example people addicted to perscription drugs who constantly go doctor shopping to get their fix.
In this case there was no insentive to lie. In fact he ended up owning up for what the psyciatrist says he was lying about.
As for the diagnosis... I'm not sure if you missed this in another thread recently, but actually diagnosing a patient's motivations is actually is something you tend to not want to do because it's largely a guess and can cause negative effects. Remember the whole DID/Sybil discussion? It didn't really matter in this case, since it's a court case and really how much more fucked up could the guy get? However, it's foolish to treat a psychological evaluation as a medical doctor's evaluration, and even they aren't spot on all the time.
Hell, considering they needed that doctor to testify you can gurantee the defense had a psychologist that argued the exact opposite... depending on how many psycolgoists testified you can gurantee there was way more then one diagnosis.
This is true, especially 'cause the defense initially argued that he was insane. I do think he had a reason to lie, that being that his father planned to use him as some sort of endorser for born again christians and creationism. Why he did it, I do not know. But as I said, that entire interview was phony.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
Which largely doesn't really gel, based on the fact that his family wasn't that religious for a large part of his life.
As for Pathological lying... it depends on how you define it. In this case it was being used as "He lies repeatidly to get what he wants." Which could be said of any number of people. For example people addicted to perscription drugs who constantly go doctor shopping to get their fix.
In this case there was no insentive to lie. In fact he ended up owning up for what the psyciatrist says he was lying about.
As for the diagnosis... I'm not sure if you missed this in another thread recently, but actually diagnosing a patient's motivations is actually is something you tend to not want to do because it's largely a guess and can cause negative effects. Remember the whole DID/Sybil discussion? It didn't really matter in this case, since it's a court case and really how much more fucked up could the guy get? However, it's foolish to treat a psychological evaluation as a medical doctor's evaluration, and even they aren't spot on all the time.
Hell, considering they needed that doctor to testify you can gurantee the defense had a psychologist that argued the exact opposite... depending on how many psycolgoists testified you can gurantee there was way more then one diagnosis.
This is true, especially 'cause the defense initially argued that he was insane. I do think he had a reason to lie, that being that his father planned to use him as some sort of endorser for born again christians and creationism. Why he did it, I do not know. But as I said, that entire interview was phony.
What does that get HIM though?
I mean all accounts put him as a sociopath. What his father wants should be pretty pointless to him...
Furthermore, why would his father want to use him like that? This is a man who himself greatly struggled with his faith... not exactly the types that are out their beating the drum for their religion.
I think you only wish to see the interview as phony because it gels with your world view better that way. There really isn't any reason to lie like that.
Which largely doesn't really gel, based on the fact that his family wasn't that religious for a large part of his life.
As for Pathological lying... it depends on how you define it. In this case it was being used as "He lies repeatidly to get what he wants." Which could be said of any number of people. For example people addicted to perscription drugs who constantly go doctor shopping to get their fix.
In this case there was no insentive to lie. In fact he ended up owning up for what the psyciatrist says he was lying about.
As for the diagnosis... I'm not sure if you missed this in another thread recently, but actually diagnosing a patient's motivations is actually is something you tend to not want to do because it's largely a guess and can cause negative effects. Remember the whole DID/Sybil discussion? It didn't really matter in this case, since it's a court case and really how much more fucked up could the guy get? However, it's foolish to treat a psychological evaluation as a medical doctor's evaluration, and even they aren't spot on all the time.
Hell, considering they needed that doctor to testify you can gurantee the defense had a psychologist that argued the exact opposite... depending on how many psycolgoists testified you can gurantee there was way more then one diagnosis.
This is true, especially 'cause the defense initially argued that he was insane. I do think he had a reason to lie, that being that his father planned to use him as some sort of endorser for born again christians and creationism. Why he did it, I do not know. But as I said, that entire interview was phony.
What does that get HIM though?
I mean all accounts put him as a sociopath. What his father wants should be pretty pointless to him...
Furthermore, why would his father want to use him like that? This is a man who himself greatly struggled with his faith... not exactly the types that are out their beating the drum for their religion.
I think you only wish to see the interview as phony because it gels with your world view better that way. There really isn't any reason to lie like that.
From that very interview he seemd exactly like the type of person who beats the drum for their religion. He's an active advocate for creationism, and it seems to me like it's pretty clear that he was using that interview as a vehicle to portray evolution and non belief as evil. Even the way the interview is titled is meant to suggest that. The guy isn't taking responsability for his actions, but blaming his non-belief and evolution for influencing him to think that he didn't have to do that. What he personally had to gain from this, I do not know, but it doesn't change the fact that the 'interview' (you might as well call it an infomercial for creationsim) was one big joke.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
i dont think you need to hate religion to think the interview seemed "off".
the likelihood of this individual just reading some creationist material and suddenly having the supposed dramatic change is pretty much nonexistent.
i have no idea what his angle was, but he definitely had one.
"I like my steaks how i like my women. Bloody and all over my face"
Which largely doesn't really gel, based on the fact that his family wasn't that religious for a large part of his life.
As for Pathological lying... it depends on how you define it. In this case it was being used as "He lies repeatidly to get what he wants." Which could be said of any number of people. For example people addicted to perscription drugs who constantly go doctor shopping to get their fix.
In this case there was no insentive to lie. In fact he ended up owning up for what the psyciatrist says he was lying about.
As for the diagnosis... I'm not sure if you missed this in another thread recently, but actually diagnosing a patient's motivations is actually is something you tend to not want to do because it's largely a guess and can cause negative effects. Remember the whole DID/Sybil discussion? It didn't really matter in this case, since it's a court case and really how much more fucked up could the guy get? However, it's foolish to treat a psychological evaluation as a medical doctor's evaluration, and even they aren't spot on all the time.
Hell, considering they needed that doctor to testify you can gurantee the defense had a psychologist that argued the exact opposite... depending on how many psycolgoists testified you can gurantee there was way more then one diagnosis.
This is true, especially 'cause the defense initially argued that he was insane. I do think he had a reason to lie, that being that his father planned to use him as some sort of endorser for born again christians and creationism. Why he did it, I do not know. But as I said, that entire interview was phony.
What does that get HIM though?
I mean all accounts put him as a sociopath. What his father wants should be pretty pointless to him...
Furthermore, why would his father want to use him like that? This is a man who himself greatly struggled with his faith... not exactly the types that are out their beating the drum for their religion.
I think you only wish to see the interview as phony because it gels with your world view better that way. There really isn't any reason to lie like that.
From that very interview he seemd exactly like the type of person who beats the drum for their religion. He's an active advocate for creationism, and it seems to me like it's pretty clear that he was using that interview as a vehicle to portray evolution and non belief as evil. Even the way the interview is titled is meant to suggest that. The guy isn't taking responsability for his actions, but blaming his non-belief and evolution for influencing him to think that he didn't have to do that. What he personally had to gain from this, I do not know, but it doesn't change the fact that the 'interview' (you might as well call it an infomercial for creationsim) was one big joke.
A) Your confusing what the youtube video was called vs the actual interview. The actual name of the show I believe was "Confessions of a Serial Killer."
B) Are you talking about Dhamer here or his father? He specifically said he was taking responsibility for his actions and was just explaining his mindset in decision making. I mean everyone has a reason they make a choice to do anything. I mean shit, if he said he did it because of Chritisanity you'd be all over it. Hell you look high and low for cases of things you think you can maybe possibly blame on Christianity.
Your being intellectually dishonest in the handling of it.
Which largely doesn't really gel, based on the fact that his family wasn't that religious for a large part of his life.
As for Pathological lying... it depends on how you define it. In this case it was being used as "He lies repeatidly to get what he wants." Which could be said of any number of people. For example people addicted to perscription drugs who constantly go doctor shopping to get their fix.
In this case there was no insentive to lie. In fact he ended up owning up for what the psyciatrist says he was lying about.
As for the diagnosis... I'm not sure if you missed this in another thread recently, but actually diagnosing a patient's motivations is actually is something you tend to not want to do because it's largely a guess and can cause negative effects. Remember the whole DID/Sybil discussion? It didn't really matter in this case, since it's a court case and really how much more fucked up could the guy get? However, it's foolish to treat a psychological evaluation as a medical doctor's evaluration, and even they aren't spot on all the time.
Hell, considering they needed that doctor to testify you can gurantee the defense had a psychologist that argued the exact opposite... depending on how many psycolgoists testified you can gurantee there was way more then one diagnosis.
This is true, especially 'cause the defense initially argued that he was insane. I do think he had a reason to lie, that being that his father planned to use him as some sort of endorser for born again christians and creationism. Why he did it, I do not know. But as I said, that entire interview was phony.
What does that get HIM though?
I mean all accounts put him as a sociopath. What his father wants should be pretty pointless to him...
Furthermore, why would his father want to use him like that? This is a man who himself greatly struggled with his faith... not exactly the types that are out their beating the drum for their religion.
I think you only wish to see the interview as phony because it gels with your world view better that way. There really isn't any reason to lie like that.
From that very interview he seemd exactly like the type of person who beats the drum for their religion. He's an active advocate for creationism, and it seems to me like it's pretty clear that he was using that interview as a vehicle to portray evolution and non belief as evil. Even the way the interview is titled is meant to suggest that. The guy isn't taking responsability for his actions, but blaming his non-belief and evolution for influencing him to think that he didn't have to do that. What he personally had to gain from this, I do not know, but it doesn't change the fact that the 'interview' (you might as well call it an infomercial for creationsim) was one big joke.
A) Your confusing what the youtube video was called vs the actual interview. The actual name of the show I believe was "Confessions of a Serial Killer."
B) Are you talking about Dhamer here or his father? He specifically said he was taking responsibility for his actions and was just explaining his mindset in decision making. I mean everyone has a reason they make a choice to do anything. I mean shit, if he said he did it because of Chritisanity you'd be all over it. Hell you look high and low for cases of things you think you can maybe possibly blame on Christianity.
Your being intellectually dishonest in the handling of it.
And he was putting the blame on something else, regardless of what he is saying. Plus, as I said, the whole interview is dishonest (more so than I can be interpreted as being). As MrBubbles said, they guy and his fatehr had some angle, and they were not being genuine.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
MrBubbles said: i dont think you need to hate religion to think the interview seemed "off". the likelihood of this individual just reading some creationist material and suddenly having the supposed dramatic change is pretty much nonexistent. i have no idea what his angle was, but he definitely had one.
That's because the entire thing is an infomercial. Little effort and magical results.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
