Slimebeast said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Slimebeast said:
This is ridicilous. You only describe criminals as being victims.
|
That's because they are. In fact, we are all victims to our personal preferences. Even the kindest - as well as the most horrific persons you could possibly think of are victims to their surroundings, feelings and values. For instance, Hitler was a victim to his greed and countless other factors which made him think he was the good guy in the war.
Some criminals may appear to have had no- or very bad motives for their criminal actions, but that's simply because it can be difficult for us to understand them, and how they resonate.
We are all victims to how we resonate, and our reasonings are completely depending on our beliefs. We don't choose what to believe; our guts tells us what we find reasonable. We could defy our guts, but that would put us in denial.
|
So you mean people who make good and beneficial deeds also victims. The "no free will" argument, that tere's always a ligitimate excuse for every single action any individual ever takes in his life, always.
But why do you assume criminals always have these negative features, like bad childhood, poor economy, personality defects and so on.
Can't you imagine a more harmonic person commit crimes?
|
Yeah, Hitler...
Still, people don't go around and commit criminal acts unless there is some sort of motive involved. The adrenaline rush is one possible motive, free money or supplies is another and gaining pleasure from hurting others is yet another. No one would randomly say, "Hmm... Maybe I should go kill someone for no reason?" because there always is one. Even if it's very hard to find in certain cases.
