AtheisticNonduality

Resource allocation has to take morality into account. I'm fine with revenge if it's truly personal and happens outside the court system. Once the government/civilization/legality gets its hands on it, it should be completely humane. Efficiency of resources here would dedicate this one's life to being scientifically studied. @The Mystical Man The "orator" for that "criminal psychology" video has an obnoxious voice. And the murderer did not appear to be "pretending to be crazy" since he seemed, by his actions and mannerisms and the shape of his head and the look in his eye, to be actually insane. I'd say the reason I've been aggressive here is because most of the masses are idiots on this topic and will blindly favor the killing of the murderer, when I (from a higher perspective of course ) wouldn't necessarily view it that way.

watched this today

I don't recognize it, but looks extremely ugly and imbalanced (Danioover the artist has bad taste in aesthetics!?!?!!). So the hatred is probably not just a trend.

If it was a gift you could have it as euthanasia. But I don't think he wants to be euthanized. They could dedicate the rest of his life to biochemical or psychological studies though.

Never said he was equal. I'm just saying 1 does not equal 0. Or rather, there's no good reason here to subtract 1 from 1 (execution) into 0 (another death, which serves no good purpose). Never met them. So I assume they were average humans . . . I see the good/virtue in everyone, and oftentimes with situations like this and conversations of the death penalty I see the evil/stupidity in everyone - so make of that what you will.

What ramifications would come from 17 deaths in some random Floridian high school? Is 17 really > 1 to such an extent to where 17 dying is the worst thing in the world but 1 dying is basically nothing? Just because the 17 had loving families and a place in society, and the 1 didn't? As qualitative as it is, "evil" is a pretty good measurer here. "Evil" would be if somebody slaughtered 17 people with more conscious malice and homicidal happiness and torturous abandon. This one doesn't strike me as evil but rather as a damaged brain that went through too much stress and which ended up committing an egregious crime (considering real evil, think of the recent mass murderer in Thailand that actually shot and stabbed preschoolers to death during nap time). There's an important difference, which people won't see because they are too focused on their own whims.

Yeah, well, deciding who's going to live or die is a very serious topic with serious ramifications, so concessions should not just be made to a group of people just because of how emotionally charged and volatile they are.

Human beings are petty revengeful creatures that would kill a "brain-damaged . . . broken" person because he performed a violent incidence of insanity that killed 17 people. This may sound extraordinarily unempathetic, but the families are acting irrationally when they say the right decision is death on this one. If a fully conscious person set somebody I loved on fire and killed them, I would kill that person using torture; so I perfectly understand the instinct to eliminate threats / achieve revenge (I don't understand it in a modern, civilized, legal context). I think in terms of modernity, civilization, and legality - though - the proper route is to experiment on him rather than eliminate him for no good reason. It's just a broken "cog in the machine" that you want to destroy, when you broke it in the first place. So it's reasonable to actually find a competent way of understanding and dealing with such mentally diseased humans - instead of being a hyper-emotionally compromised idiot that deals with everything by killing or that cries, "Waaa, I wanted the government to kill this mentally ill brain-damaged cog for me."

Yes, I'm looking forward to having an exact repeat of the other death penalty thread . . .

@Bobby_2021 Fix your grammatical errors.

Yeah, it was weird, because I wasn't even obsessed with her. But then after the dreams my interest in her increased. So unconscious interest was converted into conscious interest by the compensatory function of dreams.

Actually you are already banned.

What she asked of me at the end of the dream . . . @Oeaohoo What is your Ku Klux Dog from?

@Carl-Richard You still haven't dreamt of Aksnes??

Because Leo is the Ratatouille of consciousness work.

Assuming this forum still exists and I'm still here, I recommend myself for administrator upon Leo Gura's death to carry out the legacy and extend the wisdom to future generations.

@Oeaohoo I love your profile picture. Spooky ghost dog in front of a theatrical curtain for October.

Taking a hot bath filled with LSD?????

This explains both sides competently but ultimately sides with Carl in its preferred explanation of the same data. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526420/

no

Not really. I just use it in a more extreme way with higher standards.

@Scholar You're essentially saying the phrase beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the "eye of the beholder" = reality. Therefore reality = beauty, or at least beauty is in reality with every inch of reality qualifiable by the nature of beauty. Absolute Beauty. There is no Absolute Ugliness because ugliness is a low amount of beauty (dark is a low level of light), even though ugliness and beauty have different effects mentally (like how dark and light have different responses even though they are both light or Light). But if you want a more "aggravatingly" and uselessly complicated analysis of this you could read some of Kant's aesthetics / criticisms of judgement.

Can't help but think some of the people here are ranking the races by IQ now . . .

You're way too egalitarian. They're not the same.

How do we separate the two insanities? One of them is when you awaken to truth and become incompatible with the others in the dark ages of our society. The other is when one "goes psycho."