moral crimes

  • Serialkiller motives. 

We can group the motivations of serial killers into three main types, which each include some pathologies ranging from a killer to another.

  1. The motivation that can be described as “psychotic”, often comes under psychoses, and also hallucinations. The killer says he is driven to kill by higher entities, including God or the Devil. They are often prey to schizophrenia, and pulse murders so often disorganized. As it was the case of David Berkowitz or even Richard Ramirez.
  2. The “moralistic” killer generally don’t suffer from psychosis or hallucinations, but has a very high opinion of morality, of right and wrong. They often see themselves as sporting a mission to eliminate what they consider immoral. Generally, prostitutes, homosexuals, etc. The famous Jack the Ripper is the most telling example.
  3. The serial killer that can be considered as “hedonist” gives a notion of intense pleasure to his murders. Violence, murder and domination of the victim is then about sexuality and possession. The hedonistic killer is often highly organized and can be pathologicaly psychopathic. The most obvious examples are Dennis Rader and Ted Bundy.

Idk why people always portray Alfred as such a righteous and selfless guy like guys I need a fic where he is willing to sell out his friends just because someone gave him a shit load of money. I NEED A FIC WHERE AT FIRST HE SEEM LIKE SUCH A GOOD GUY BUT THEM THIS HANDSOME BUT VERY BAD PERSON COMES UP AND SEDUCES HIM and not with his good looks but WITH MONEY

Character sheet for RPGs, LARP, DnD, etc

Build (muscular, skinny, chubby, etc):
Type (Mage, archer, warrior, alchemist, etc):
Alignment (neutral good, chaotic evil, etc):

Senses (heightened, deaf, psychic, etc):

Clothing style:
Overall appearance:

General mood:


Income (if any):
Weaknesses (at least four):
Crime record:

Pet peeves:

Soft spot:
Special abilities:

Song that suits your character:

Awareness of the absurd, when we first claim to deduce a rule of behavior from it, makes murder seem a matter of indifference, to say the least, and hence possible. If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then anything is possible and nothing has any importance. There is no pro or con: the murderer is neither right nor wrong. We are free to stoke the crematory fires or to devote ourselves to the care of lepers. Evil and virtue are mere chance or caprice.
—  Camus

The Rebel

An important distinction

I talk about thought crimes and ideology a lot, and there’s some overlap that might seem contradictory on the surface, so it’s worth taking a moment to clarify.

Mistreat or harshly judge someone for thinking or fantasizing about something you don’t like, even if to do that thing in real life would be illegal and/or abhorrent. Thought crimes are not real crimes, not under any circumstances. Indulging in fantasies or works of fiction about “problematic” things is not a morally reprehensible behavior, and harassing someone for doing so is.

Hold people accountable and take action to stop them if they actively endorse or explicitly advocate doing abhorrent things in real life. That’s no longer a thought crime, it’s an action. It’s certainly not on the same level as actually doing the reprehensible thing, but it is totally different from fantasy or fictional indulgence. Advocating or endorsing a horrible action is a form of threat, with a significant potential for harm that is not present in thought crimes.

Understanding the difference is vital.

Today, in stories that make you lose faith in humanity, I bring you a horrific and controversial crime that happened recently in the southern town of Temuco, in Chile.

Alan Peña (13) was a troubled boy. His parents were divorced; his mother had moved somewhere else and he was left in the care of his father, along with two younger siblings. However Alan, who was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, became too much for the father to handle, so he left him in the care of the Sename, a state’s organization in charge of protecting minors that is notorious for doing a terrible job at it. The father visited regularly, but he didn’t always find his son: he had a tendency to escape the facility.

On November 30, 2016, Alan escaped the Sename’s home one last time, and never came back. His body was found on December 13, wrapped in a blanket and hidden under a bed. Police also found a bloddy mattress, a belt and a hammer.

The house where Alan was found belonged to Victor Chanqueo (18), a young man with whom Alan stayed during his escapes. They sold calendars together in the streets. The day before he died, Alan was captured and tied to a chair by Victor and a couple by the names of Johana Mora y Pablo Morales, who believed Alan had raped their 5 year old girl. In a blind act of revenge, allegedly fueled by drugs, Johana and Pablo tortured Alan for 12 hours, hitting him with the hammer. According to their statement later, the boy showed little reaction to the beating, which only infuriated them more. They finally suffocated him with a plastic bag and a pillow. 

An examination of the 5 year old girl proved that she hadn’t been raped, although authorities haven’t yet discarded other forms of abuse. Johana says that she saw her with a black eye, but it’s unclear how they reached the conclusion that it had been Alan who did it.

Johana and Pablo said that Victor had helped them in the beating, but he denies it. The three of them have been arrested and are awaiting trial along with a man called Abraham Bravo, who drove Johana to the place where everything happened and helped them hide the body, although he says he tried to alert the police.

According to Alan’s family, he was very loving and excessively “touchy feely”, which might have given the wrong impression to some. Former teachers have said that he had a “hypersexualized behavior”, due to his vulnerable situation. 

What I qualify as hatred

I view hatred -in reference to hating a person- as the process of viewing and using another person as a container for your disgust. Hatred, in contrast to anger, is doing any of the following:

>Dehumanization: Viewing someone as a lesser being than others, without the innate qualities that all people have such as their individual agency, individual interest, individual worth, and individual right to self determination (so this also includes violating people’s rights), especially when viewing a person as “inhuman”

>Prejudice: Asserting someone is bad by having a similar appearance to someone your dont like. Evaluating someone’s personal worth and merit based on superficial characteristics, despite their actual merit. (Does not apply to dating, you cant rightfully shame someone for not wanting to fuck you)

>Malice: Attempting to destroy someone’s self worth, relationships, security, livelihood, and/or violate their individual rights.

>Grudge: Holding someone unamendably accountable or at your mercy for perceived wrongdoings

>Scape-goating: Blaming someone for the wrongdoings of other people

>Conscripting: Unduly asserting that someone is indebted to you or required to make amends to you, despite not having having violated you

>Revenge: Wrath or punishment for a perceived transgression rather than expressing your concern, correcting, teaching, rehabilitating, forgiving, or demanding amends.

>Thought policing: Demanding someone change their views and feelings based only on the assertion that they have to, rather than a logical argument. Essentially, telling someone they’re not allowed to think or feel autonomously, and that they must instead group-think with you dependently. This includes telling someone they them self are a bad or evil person for beliefs, rather than viewing their ideas as bad independent of their individual worth.

Wanting to do something terrible doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person.  Even if it’s something unbelievably heinous and abhorrent, even if you truly desire to do it more than anything else in the world, that still doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person.  What you want to do is just a thought, a fantasy, something that only exists inside your head and need not ever affect anyone else in any substantial negative way.  The majority of desires people have aren’t their own conscious choices anyway, and labeling people as fundamentally bad for aspects of themselves that they didn’t choose to have is incredibly dangerous and regressive.

What matters is what you actually do, or what you actively intend to do.  If you have no intention of ever actually doing something awful, and you have sufficient control over your own behavior to keep your dangerous or inappropriate desires from ever becoming actions, then no matter how much you desire to do something terrible, those desires don’t make you a bad person.  Most people occasionally want to do things that would be totally inappropriate for them to actually do, and if we start persecuting people for merely wanting to do those things, if we start down the road of punishing thought crimes, everyone would eventually be found guilty of crimes that they had never committed.

Thought crimes are not crimes, even if you really want to do those things.  Action, intention to act, and the ability to control one’s actions are what matters, not the mere desire to act.

Hilda Nilsson is similar to other historic female serial killers in that she was engaged in the ‘baby farming’ business. This business involved taking unwanted children from unwed mothers. At the time having children outside of wedlock was considered a serious moral crime, and baby farmers would agree to care for these illegitimate children for a small fee. Like a few other notable baby farmers of the time Nilsson would gladly take the fee from the mothers with no intention of caring for the children, instead she killed them and kept the money for herself.

While other cases involved death through neglect, with women leaving children without food or adequate care, Nilsson would actively kill the children that she had agreed to take care of. One of the main methods of murder was to put the infant in a washtub and place a heavy object on top of the child to ensure they remained submerged in water. The bodies of the children would be burned or buried in shallow graves.

Nilsson was convicted of eight murders, and sentenced to death. In an ironic twist of fate Nilsson completed suicide - before she could be told that her death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment.

anonymous asked:

Part of me feels like Murder-chan and Uf!Sans would not get a long at all! Or at least the interact would be one-sided, with Murder-chan hating his existence and UF!Sans aware she hates his existence, but couldn't care less and continues to flirt, perv, and be a general asshat to her.

Actually, MrC wouldn’t hate Uf!Sans at all. They wouldn’t be able to get along, but she’s not a hateful person and she would only try to kill Uf!Sans for the sake of making him more ‘beautiful’, aka not a murderer. But if MrC didn’t know Uf!Sans at all, the interaction would probably go like this…

MrC would only hurt someone if she knew they were guilty of a moral crime and would only hate someone if they reminded her of her late fiance, ie someone who was manipulative and abusive to their SO.

No More Recasts - I am Pro Artist

I’m in the process of selling my recast dolls as part of my overall “if you need to come up with an excuse for what you’re doing, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it” bi-annual existential panic.

I’ve been working with a few great seamstresses over etsy and the like to have really flawless clothing made for my dolls, and it was actually that that made me realize I can’t own recasts any more. As the seamstress, I would feel sick knowing my hard work was used to lend legitimacy to a fake–like a period picture frame on a forged painting. I tag all my doll snaps with “recast”, which is ironically even worse, as it may encourage someone else to think that a fake is just as good as, or acceptable as, the real thing, and/or that any of the people associated with clothing/wig-making/etc for the doll endorse their wares being put on stolen goods that are killing the hobby.

I have always admired people in the bjd hobby for the art they create–whether the dolls themselves, the props, the clothing, the photos, what-have you. I have stayed away from the bjd community because I knew I was committing a crime morally, if not legally, against artists by funding recasters. I am ashamed of what I have done, and I hope I can prove both in word and deed that I will do right by the doll community–artists and collectors alike–from this day forwards.

anonymous asked:

Please grant me your thoughts about Reno?

Why would you unleash the beast within me.

I fell in love with all of the Turks almost immediately, Reno most of all but also his boyfriend partner in crime, Rude. I’ve always been attracted to morally ambiguous underworld/crime syndicate types and for FFVII, it was definitely all due to the writing because when we first see Reno, he looks like this:

Adorable. Anyway, obviously Reno has some of the best snarky lines in the game, but my favorite thing about Reno was always his cold professionalism; he’s compartmentalized between Work and Off Duty. It’s our job is a thing he says a lot, usually while committing murder in some form. I think due to the release of Advent Children, which positioned both Rude and Reno as more comic relief than a real threat, it’s easy to forget that Reno was responsible for the decimation of the entirety of Sector 7. The director’s cut offers a bit more insight, but still not a whole lot.

But as a result of his compartmentalization, Reno rarely seems to hold grudges or take much personally. There are just people who are in his way and people who are not, and he appears unconcerned with putting in extra effort to take out Cloud and co, for example, because they happened upon him while he was on vacation with his buddies.

I feel like by the events of AC, he’s grown some more compassion, but I wish we’d seen more of this development and that it hadn’t been so exaggerated for comedic purposes. This is why I’m so excited for the remake of the original game because I really want to see the ruthless but oddly lovable asshole Reno I fell in love with in glorious Squeenix rendering.

In conclusion, I love my garbage son:

Originally posted by slyfoxhound778

anonymous asked:

I feel like a lot of this anti-cursing sentiment shared in this community is very similar to that of the whole, "Be the better person!" when someone seriously wrongs you or hurts you. Especially if this has to do with abuse, other crimes, or morally questionable acts perpetrated against a person. I think it's total bullshit; It's total victim-blaming and the only purpose it serves is to stigmatize making your own justice and defending yourself, all while allowing the perp to get off scott-free.

Pretty much. It’s obviously your personal choice to curse or not - but generally there’s two things to consider for those who are for or against it.

1) You should not be cursing willy nilly because it’s cool and edgy or because Mary Sue stole your pencil or your boyfriend. You can get a new pencil and your bf obviously sucked ass. Use some common sense. It CAN be very bad for you to do recklessly and could alter your worldview. THAT I agree on.

2) Cursing is often the only remaining way to change a situation after consulting authorities, the law, courts, etc. We can all understand that the judicial system is not here to help those underprivileged, minorities or targeted otherwise. You should absolutely not feel bad or make others feel bad for cursing someone who has abused their power to overtake someone else’s.

By personal example this was the only way I could get a customer to stop sexually harassing me. My boss did not listen. My manager did not talk to this person. I did not have physical evidence to show as he sometimes said these things over company phone lines or in person, alone in his garage.

Now he has a healthy fear of me that came precisely out of nowhere and he keeps his mouth shut. No more problem. And no year-long battle with authorities to get them to believe me. Small towns don’t favor outsiders. I’ll stick to taking care of myself.

anonymous asked:

Hello there! If it's not too much trouble, could you recommend any current tv shows with Christian characters who aren't reduced to crude stereotypes or out-and-out clowns? I'd REALLY appreciate it :)

Hey! I can think of a few but it’s very rare to find Christian characters on television who aren’t terrible people or absolute imbeciles. Jane on Jane the Virgin is an all around lovely, strong, Catholic Latina woman whose faith is treated in a dynamic way the the writers. Crazy Ex Girlfriend is a musical comedy that actually knows how to write religious characters who aren’t stereotypes. Rebecca is Jewish and while she pokes fun at that it’s obviously a part of her identity and Josh is a practicing Catholic who has some very honest, very funny conversations with his priest, the basketball playing “Father Brah”.  Shepherd Book from the sci-fi adventure series Firefly is a pastor who travels on board a ship filled with criminals and runaways, and he’s a solid moral center for the rag tag family while also having a dark past which well aquatints him with the grey moral areas between justice, crime, and heroism. 

Those are the only characters I can think of that fall under the parameters listed, but I want to bring up two honorable mentions. Agent Cooper from the soapy paranormal murder mystery Twin Peaks is an FBI agent, not a religious leader, but as I’ve argued before, he very much embodies the archetype of the priest, if you want to have some fun and read him that way. Finally, I can’t not mention Kenneth Parcell from 30 Rock. He’s an absurdly over the top character (like all characters on 30  Rock) who does embody a lot of backwoods Bible believer steryotypes but he’s still a thoroughly kind, honest, hopeful person, and maybe…an angel? It’s vv unclear. But he’s hard not to love. 

Feel free to jump in the comments with your favorite TV Christians, or even people of faith more generally!


By Any Other Name

MFMM Minor Character Love – Rose Weston (portrayed by Taylor Ferguson)

When we first meet Rose, she seems like a reckless trouble-maker. She also seems like she might really be the queen of the flowers (with a name like “Rose” how could she be less”) with her big house and her lack of welfare experience. She holds herself mostly expressionless, with only small tics of emotion as they discover the body of her friend. As Jack says, she’s “a liar, a pyromaniac, and a flower maiden.”

Throughout the course of the episode she becomes a suspect (though not a very convincing one), a victim, and finally a survivor. She has a depth to her that we don’t often get to see in a single episode of a serial TV show—especially from a character who is not terribly outwardly emotive (though, MFMM does this particularly well, Miss Leigh for example.)

Rose has been abandoned so much in life. Presumably her parents are either dead or unsuitable in some way (we’re never told) because she’s been living with her grandfather for some time and doesn’t seem to have any other options. While she may have been wealthy at one time, that wealth never afforded her any love. She was very attached to Kitty, possibly even in love with her—though it’s never explicitly stated as such. When she describes her times with Kitty to Phryne and Jack, the look on her face is one of wistful remembrance. While the love may not have been romantic in nature it was genuine and pure, at least from Rose’s perspective.

Rose is starving for love. Her grandfather seems inept at it. Even though on some level, she understands that the idea of being the Mayor’s “proper girlfriend” is wrong she still feels a kind of loyalty to him. When Kitty wants to tell on him. She tries to stop her. Whether out of loyalty to the Mayor, or a desire to keep things the way they are with Kitty—or a bit of both, I’m not even she could say. It seems like an odd reaction until you look at through the filter of someone who needs to hold on to each of the people who has professed to love her, even just a little. She is assumed to be less in need of things like love because she came from means. Because she has things.

I’d come all that way and Kitty didn’t want to go out anymore. She was angry. Told me I didn’t know how hard her life was because I lived in a big house.

She struggles with Kitty, but doesn’t kill her. She never would do that. Friends are far too rare a commodity to her. 

As the episode unfolds, she spends most of her time where she has always been. In the background. 

An afterthought. Even Phryne considers her only after Jane. 

Grandpa Weston: Rose left me a note but I didn’t take it seriously. Rose left this on the doorstep last night.But she didn’t take her bag, clothes, money, nothing. So naturally I assumed she’d be back.

Phryne: But this says that she doesn’t want to go on. Do you think Jane’s with her?

When Rose realizes that Kitty was expecting and the Mayor was responsible for her death. She makes herself vulnerable by seeking answers. She’s still not ready to confront the Mayor, but it’s enough to force her out of her place in the background. It’s the spark that is needed to spur the Mayor into making a mistake and the detectives into realizing the plot. 

Oh, Hugh. So worried about that bell.

The Mayor, of course, fakes her suicide attempt but luckily the detectives get to her in time to save her. 

She finally reveals the plot that her grandfather has essentially sold her to pay off his debts. He is sorry, so sorry—though it seems to me he’s sorry he got caught, still not fully comprehending the damage done to this girl.

The denouement comes when Rose, after confronting her grandfather and his crimes against morality faces her attacker and “proper boyfriend” for his crimes against Kitty and herself.

Revenge of the Flower Maiden

Jack tells Phryne that the Flower Maidens will become Firebrands in their own right and demand justice. I hope that will be the case for Rose. It will take her a long time to be whole again, but I like to think she is on the right path.