I've often wondered myself why serial killers don't kill only bad people. I've wondered that for about 40 years now. Why would you opt for too many rules rather than none at all? Any particular reason?
1. Answer to the first question. Serial Killers are not trying to help anyone. They are wicked. Their thrills range from a glitch in their makeup and they are randomly responding in a knee-jerk fashion, to opting to feel the biggest thrill by doing the most wicked behavior they can imagine to get their cookies off.
Helping society by killing bad people? They would screw it UP. They don't know what bad even is.
Remember the Green River Killer? He sincerely thought he was doing a great thing by killing prostitutes. Too bad that half the women he killed were not prostitutes and even if they were? Is that a reason to knock someone off when you have Peophhiles and sex trafficers to wipe out?
They just never ever get it right.
As far as your second question to me, I don't want to glorify tyranny. GOD NO. And, the only thing to DO in that case is probably rebel. But don't think you want that choice. It is terrifying, NOT romantic at all. You will probably wind up dying for your cause in not a nice way.
So, that is what I meant. Too much either way is horrid. If you want to be a guerilla warfare soldier and live in the mountains and not take a bath for weeks and starve to death trying to stay alive? I guess that is preferable to ????
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at October 30, 2016 2:02 PM MDT
And what if someone gets killed for supposedly being a "pedophile" when they are in fact totally innocent and the victim of a malicious lie? I bet you didn't think of that, did you?
Oh come on. Knock it off and stay on the argument here. That was not even remotely what we are talking about. Stay on point.
What if? There are no what if's here. I am saying they would never be able to only kill bad guys. You are the one that requested an answer to ONLY THAT. Not what if.
I just TOLD you about the Green River Killer. That was exactly my point. Serial killers simply will never get it right. GOT IT NOW?
Very defensive reply, Sharonna. I hadn't heard about the Green River killer but he sounds a lot like the Yorkshire Ripper. He's one of the well-known psychos in my country. Yes, I did ask why serial killers don't kill only bad people, since I've wondered about that for such a long time, but I didn't say don't tell me "what if", did I? Lots of people, killers or otherwise, don't realise that they could do the rest of the world a favour if they did get it right. How come they can't see that?
As for tyranny versus anarchy, I agree too much of either would be a bad thing, but given the choice I would have to choose too much anarchy as opposed to too much tyranny. It's a bit nearer to my own ideals. Only a bit, but it's still the lesser of the two evils.
I think I can answer that last one Andy. No rules means you have no protection, and I can guarantee you won't be able to protect yourself for very long. Within minutes of 'No Law' being declared, groups will begin to form that will apply their own law. This new law, unwritten, unstable, capricious and violent, will not be an improvement on what we have now.
That is what I have been trying to say MW. Maybe he likes hearing it better from you. Like maybe you make more sense than me. NAH. That couldn't happen, could it?
Benedict Arnold 