[007]
antva
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side (since \\\"it takes one to know one\\\"... except of course that I\\\'m not \\\"one\\\" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion of 1% of my personality mixed with 99% other stuff deserves to be strangled at birth on principle, which is a major case of CompletelyMissingThePoint. I\\\'ve excruciatingly (up to 10 hours to fit together every single page) attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it. Oh well, rambling off-tangent again, but it happens so often that it turns frustrating.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side (since \\\"it takes one to know one\\\"... except of course that I\\\'m not \\\"one\\\" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion of 1% of my personality mixed with 99% other stuff deserves to be strangled at birth on principle, which is a major case of CompletelyMissingThePoint. I\\\'ve excruciatingly (up to 10 hours to fit together every single page) attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it. Oh well, rambling off-tangent again, but it happens so often that it turns frustrating.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side (since \\\"it takes one to know one\\\"... except of course that I\\\'m not \\\"one\\\" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion of 1% of my personality mixed with 99% other stuff deserves to be strangled at birth on principle, which is a major case of MissingThePointCompletely. I\\\'ve attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it. Oh well, rambling off-tangent again, but it happens so often that it turns frustrating.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side (since \\\"it takes one to know one\\\"... except of course that I\\\'m not \\\"one\\\" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion of 1% of my personality mixed with 99% other stuff deserves to be strangled at birth on principle, which is a major case of MissingThePointCompletely. I\\\'ve attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it. Oh well, rambling off-tangent again, but it happens so often that it turns frustrating.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side (since \\\"it takes one to know one\\\"... except of course that I\\\'m not \\\"one\\\" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion deserves to be strangled at birth, which is a major case of MissingThePointCompletely. I\\\'ve attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it. Oh well, rambling again.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side (since \\\"it takes one to know one\\\"... except of course that I\\\'m not \\\"one\\\" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion deserves to be strangled at birth, which is a major case of MissingThePointCompletely. I\\\'ve attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it. Oh well, rambling again.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side, whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely rcogniseable distortion deserves to be strangled at birth, which is a major case of MissingThePointCompletely. I\\\'ve attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist KnighTemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I\\\'m part of the other side, whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely rcogniseable distortion deserves to be strangled at birth, which is a major case of MissingThePointCompletely. I\\\'ve attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that\\\'s pretty much it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist Knightemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though.
For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I\\\'m LiteralMinded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)
Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic \\\'\\\'systematic\\\'\\\' ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don\\\'t think much about it, but at least they aren\\\'t more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.
Me? No I\\\'m definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I\\\'m a desillusioned WideEyedIdealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist Knightemplar types and WhatIsEvil wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar. Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it thesmelves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush.
Beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is in any way preferable, but neither is the former.
Beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is in any way preferable, but neither is the former.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It doesn\'t matter if they have the standards that \
to:
It doesn\\\'t matter if they have the standards that \\\"I don\\\'t rape my grandma, I just eat her!\\\" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even CompleteMonster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy WhatIsEvil ones, but regardless, it just doesn\\\'t matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar. Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it thesmelves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make hardcore Nazis blush.
Beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is in any way preferable, but neither is the former.
Beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into CompleteMonster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is in any way preferable, but neither is the former.
