5 ms·

Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean they

by rocqua 4y ago

Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean they are harmless either. But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems.

tshaddox 4y ago
How are we assuming that the whole town knows someone’s thoughts if they never act on them?
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> be just as horrible I don't get the utility of making ontological statements about people including serial killers. Maybe someone who does find utility in them could chime in and explain it.
- rocqua 4y ago
  Constructed counter-examples tend to be exaggerated to bring out the inherent contradiction.
Thiez 4y ago
By definition you must murder to be a serial killer, so in that regard they are incomparable to pedophiles, who only require an attraction without acting on it. Interestingly a significant part of sexual abuse of children appears to be committed by people (mostly men) as a crime of opportunity, without them being primarily or exclusively attracted to children.
- rocqua 4y ago
  That is arguing semantics. The point was about the difference between urges and actions.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. " Sure, because they simply would not be serial killers, if they have never killed. So yes, it is important to make the clear distinction between people who have done horrible things and those, who have fantasies about it and not mix them all together. Part of what makes us human is impulse control. I might feel the urge to beat someone - but only if I would let that part of myself go, then there is a real problem as then something happened. With pedophiles it is of course a bit more tricky. Would you let someone close to your kids, if you knew they have fantasies about sex with them, but so far he has showed restraint? "But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems." Yes, there was the famous incident, where one pilot decided to suicide himself and the whole plane with him. Smart populistic politicians reacted by saying they need a new law that says psychotherapists who treat pilots, must inform the authorities when the pilot has dark thoughts. Awesome way to hinder people from getting therapy as they could never open up if they know it might lead to their job being taken away. Therapies must be and remain confidential to have a chance of working.
coldtea 4y ago
>Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? No, but nobody said it would be "just as". It would still be creepy as hell though, if one did it all the time. And you never know until they're dead themselves if they'll pass into action either. Sure, this is the case with people not fantasizing about murders too -- they can still commit murder. But fantasizing makes it sound quite more likely. It's also one of the creepiest ways for someone to think of you (as their fantasy murder victim)...
- Hizonner 4y ago
  Your use of "any better" has the same semantic content as the use of "just as" would have had.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Nope. "Any better" was used in the context of the question whether being an X person who does X because genetics is better than being an X person who does X by choice. To which I replied that it's not "any better" (both result in many people being murdered horrifically). "Just as" was used in the context of the question whether fantasizing about X is "just as" bad as doing X. To which I replied that it's not "just as bad", but it's still a bad/creepy thing. So not the same "semantic content" at all given the context.
- rocqua 4y ago
  I believe I replied to a wrong interpretation of your comment. I thought your point was the people who only think about it are just as bad as people who act. Instead, uppon rereading, I think your point was that "they can't help it, they were born that way" isn't an excuse. I agree there, though the footnote should be that people who "can't help but feel that way" shouldn't be so demonized for just their thoughts that they can't ask for help.

by rocqua 4y ago

tshaddox 4y ago

How are we assuming that the whole town knows someone’s thoughts if they never act on them?

kelseyfrog 4y ago

> be just as horrible I don't get the utility of making ontological statements about people including serial killers. Maybe someone who does find utility in them could chime in and explain it.

rocqua 4y ago
Constructed counter-examples tend to be exaggerated to bring out the inherent contradiction.

Thiez 4y ago

By definition you must murder to be a serial killer, so in that regard they are incomparable to pedophiles, who only require an attraction without acting on it. Interestingly a significant part of sexual abuse of children appears to be committed by people (mostly men) as a crime of opportunity, without them being primarily or exclusively attracted to children.

rocqua 4y ago
That is arguing semantics. The point was about the difference between urges and actions.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. " Sure, because they simply would not be serial killers, if they have never killed. So yes, it is important to make the clear distinction between people who have done horrible things and those, who have fantasies about it and not mix them all together. Part of what makes us human is impulse control. I might feel the urge to beat someone - but only if I would let that part of myself go, then there is a real problem as then something happened. With pedophiles it is of course a bit more tricky. Would you let someone close to your kids, if you knew they have fantasies about sex with them, but so far he has showed restraint? "But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems." Yes, there was the famous incident, where one pilot decided to suicide himself and the whole plane with him. Smart populistic politicians reacted by saying they need a new law that says psychotherapists who treat pilots, must inform the authorities when the pilot has dark thoughts. Awesome way to hinder people from getting therapy as they could never open up if they know it might lead to their job being taken away. Therapies must be and remain confidential to have a chance of working.

coldtea 4y ago

>Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? No, but nobody said it would be "just as". It would still be creepy as hell though, if one did it all the time. And you never know until they're dead themselves if they'll pass into action either. Sure, this is the case with people not fantasizing about murders too -- they can still commit murder. But fantasizing makes it sound quite more likely. It's also one of the creepiest ways for someone to think of you (as their fantasy murder victim)...

Hizonner 4y ago
Your use of "any better" has the same semantic content as the use of "just as" would have had.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Nope. "Any better" was used in the context of the question whether being an X person who does X because genetics is better than being an X person who does X by choice. To which I replied that it's not "any better" (both result in many people being murdered horrifically). "Just as" was used in the context of the question whether fantasizing about X is "just as" bad as doing X. To which I replied that it's not "just as bad", but it's still a bad/creepy thing. So not the same "semantic content" at all given the context.
rocqua 4y ago
I believe I replied to a wrong interpretation of your comment. I thought your point was the people who only think about it are just as bad as people who act. Instead, uppon rereading, I think your point was that "they can't help it, they were born that way" isn't an excuse. I agree there, though the footnote should be that people who "can't help but feel that way" shouldn't be so demonized for just their thoughts that they can't ask for help.