I am not sure if you are just making statements or not, but the tone from some of this seems antagonist. If I have taken you wrong, I apologize. Why I agree with a number of your statements, I disagree with the comparisons to the holocaust, the crusades, or slave trades. Also, I never used faith as a basis. The Crusades was a war of religions. The religious parties involved have never truly stated they were wrong in their involvement. The Holocaust and the American Slave trade are two issues that can be place within nearly the same confines. The societies in which these events took place, actually gave rise to the events in the first place. These societies agreed with what was being done at first and towards the end changed their positions. These changes in opinion go back to my argument that evil is something determined by societies position of what is right and what is wrong.
Again, you are injecting religion into the argument. I am not entirely sure if anyone else made religion relevant or not, since I didn't read every comment. Yes, people are born different. Some kids display homicidal tendencies when they are as young as 3 or 4, but people disregard these things as the child not being made aware that the actions they are displaying are wrong. I didn't say these people did not have free will. They exhibit free will by choosing to kill when they know they will be persecuted for it. The beliefs that Dahmer has are not a predisposition, they are a product of his experiences. Belief is something that is discovered and is something that can be taught. The is how religion has made its place in society. Also, just because someone is a killer, does not mean they do not believe in god or religion.
Well, as I didn't read your post completely before starting to respond, I now see you were in fact be antagonistic. You are obviously on a particular side of the predisposition of sex argument and I would venture to guess that this is just another opportunity for you to argue your point. As you quoted me, I can only assume your post is directed towards me and I should tell you that if you wish to address my argument, do add your own opinions and attempt to pass then off as mine. If I make a statement, I will substantiate it will a reasoned argument. You seem to lack this ability. I can actually start a comment with the phrase "without bias and objectivity" and the follow it up with "I believe". As I was not able to interview Jeffery Dahmer, I would not be able to take his views into account and make a full analysis. Also, regardless of how unbiased and objective someone attempts to be, everyones personal opinion will come into play when in discussion concerning a subject.
Finally the true heart of your response. You feel as though you are being personally attacked and you obviously take offense to being place in the same category with someone as Dahmer due to your condition. Being disconnected from society does not make someone a killer or a danger to society, it just means that they find it more difficult to understand others in society than others. It's really sad that you chose to attack in order to make your argument, but probably fortunate for you that I didn't take offense, I would have taken you seriously otherwise.
I was actually not trying to be antagonistic well not in the classical sense I do tend to be abrasive and short so I do apologize for that. Starting at the bottom and working my way up:
I dont feel personally attacked but I feel there have been far too many misdiagnosis of the same NvsN problems. I dont even particularly mind being in the same category as I was not the one who chose it for myself before being told that it was infact a category in which Dahmer also states. You are wrong about being disconnected from society however it goes just a little deeper than simply "finding it difficult to understand" It is once again a simple misdiagnosis of the same condition. I never meant to ATTACK, but in a first reply I always end up cutting corners for that I do apologize.
You were never meant to agree with the comparisons to the examples I proposed because the inherent idea that Dahmers faith was his own and to his own knowledge he believed he was not doing anything wrong. Unlike the events I mentioned however Dahmer never came to conclusion that what he might be doing is in fact wrong. I am sure he asked himself at some point but never came to the conclusion that should have been obvious.
Yes I am comparing Dahmer's beliefs with his own inner perception the same way a Christian would(in their mind, time and society) decide crusades were necessary.
The genetic predisposition to kill... Well that takes me back to a conversation I once heard about animals and instincts. One argued it was in there genetic make up that killing wasnt wrong. The other argued that their genetic makeup simply did not install morality and code of ethics at birth. But the point that was missed is that studies have shown that children between the ages of 3 and 6 have a heightened curiosity. This includes and is not limited to bending rules, breaking rules, thirst for knowledge, the realization of consequence etc. And that is exactly the criticism placed on the reasoning that it might be predisposition.. but we agree on that. No idea why I even brought it up again. Anyway moving on.
Now I remember, its because you contradicted yourself(had to reread some things because I was thoroughly confused
)
IN your first post you mentioned Dahmer was born that way. Which is why I brought up genetic predisposition in the first place.
But then you went on to say:
The beliefs that Dahmer has are not a predisposition, they are a product of his experiences.
Again I apologize the thing about the
"Never start a phrase: without bias and objectivity.
Wait for someone to call you subjective and then prove the contrary. Also you immediately follow the phrase with I believe and become subjective from that point on
But thats just a tip about how to phrase things."
It was meant to be a lighthearted comment. Not one subject to absolute scrutiny. Is this way of arguing better for you?
Oh and to answer the questions:
I do not believe evil is defined solely on the basis of "lack of empathy" But I covered genetic predisposition enough
Justice? whose justice? Mankinds? "When dealing with something that cant yet be fully understood you have but 2 options, let it live or eradicate it." But no one is above the law right? So if you break it you get judged. Maybe not in the way that you should but in the way that exists.