Who would you like to go back in time and kill?

Oh, the usual—Hitler, Stalin, George W. Bush.

Anybody else?

Well, there might be one or two, but you’d think I was absolutely horrible if I told you.

No, we wouldn’t.

We?

Me and the Internet. You know you can trust us.

Well, alright then, here goes.

I would take out Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and everyone else who ever tried to rule the world. Columbus and all the old Indian fighters (that’s Native American Indians, not Indian Indians, but maybe some of them too). Ted Bundy and all other serial killers and mass murderers (yes, I do recognize the irony) as well as all torturers, drug lords, child molesters, and slave owners. Then would come Jesus, Mohammed, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and a lot of other religious leaders. Everyone who ever killed another human being for reasons of race, religion, or ethnicity.

Let’s see, who else? Demagogues. Union busters. Furriers. Rapists (I would definitely kill rapists even if I do get off on an occasional rape fantasy). Chronic litterbugs (I can sympathize with a great many murderers, but littering is inexcusable). Druggies who have multiple babies that are taken away by Children’s Protective Services. People who breed animals to fight or dump their pets on the side of the road (I would really like to take them out). Men who beat women. Vivisectionists. Bullies who drive their classmates to suicide. People who are mean and/or dishonest their whole adult lives. Every last monarch and rich person who ever became wealthy off the backs of others. Yes, I know this would include Britain’s own dear Queen Elizabeth II. Sorry, Queenie. You’re not the worst of the lot by far, but you are the richest woman in the world, and what the hell have you done to deserve that?

God, Snowbrush, you are one bloodthirsty son of a bitch.

Thanks, but shut up now, I'm on a roll.

I would also kill all psychopaths and sociopaths, and I would euthanize advanced dementia sufferers and profoundly retarded people who are kept alive at taxpayer expense (the money really could be better spent, you know). Oh, yeah, everyone who ever suffered needlessly only to die anyway (I would be gentle with them). And, of course, lawyers—not quite every lawyer, but almost every lawyer. Sarah Palin? She died with the other demagogues.

But enough about me. Who would you kill?

Nobody. It's patently wrong to go around killing people, even mean people. You are one sick s.o.b.

So, you’re telling me that you would let 70-million people die before you would kill one Austrian megalomaniac!!!??? What if your family was being attacked, and the only way you could save them would be to kill the attackers. Are you saying you wouldn’t do it?

I wouldn’t know until it happened, but that’s different from what you’re talking about. You’re talking about the premeditated murders of thousands of people.

I would call it execution (and, in some cases, euthanasia), but putting that aside, if wanting to go back in time and right wrongs before they occur is evil, then I’m evil—and proud of it.

How do you know that killing all those people wouldn’t lead to even more suffering?

In some cases it would. For example, if I kill a child molester who is the sole support of his family, then his family might starve, or 300 years later, the world might be denied the birth of a truly great person. If I knew that would be the outcome, I would spare him, but my fantasy doesn’t allow me to consider the everlasting implications of every case. It only allows me to do what I think would make things better in the big picture. Since none of us can see into the future, this is basically how we already live.

But would you REALLY kill all those people?

You question reminds me of a joke. A man was seated beside an attractive woman at a dinner party. After an exchange of pleasantries, he asked if she would go to bed with him for a million dollars. “I would,” she said. “Well, then, would you go to bed with me for $25?” “Sir! What kind of a woman do you think I am?” “We’ve already settled that. Now, we’re dickering on price.”

Now, you tell me whether or not you would kill Hitler. On the one hand, you have the lives of 70 million people, untold millions of other creatures, and the lifelong emotional and physical impairment of many times that number. You also have incalculable environmental, artistic, historical, and financial destruction. On the other, you have the life of a scumball named Adolf Hitler. Furthermore, imagine that you don’t even have to go back in time and get your hands dirty; you can kill him right now simply by wishing it so. Picture him in his crib in May 1889 (see photo), and wish him dead, and, presto, he’s dead. If you don’t kill him, then I, for one, will think of you as someone whose ethics are so divorced from reality as to be utterly egocentric, but if you do kill him, we will know what you are. The only remaining question is whom else you would kill. Surely, Stalin. Unquestionably, Pol Pot. Doubtlessly, Kim Jong-iI. Where would you stop? Why would you stop?

39 comments:

The Bipolar Diva said...

I would kill the "man" that sexually abused my grandson.

I sent you an email just now.

The Bipolar Diva said...

Oh, and that fantasy, I have it too.

Simone said...

The truth is: Given the right circumstances, anyone is capable of anything! You might just as well kill everyone and yourself too for that matter...we are all in the same boat. No one is good.

Simone

kj said...

i would kill hilter.

snow, this is a brilliant essay. it exceeds and succeeds in every way.

love
kj

Lydia said...

I would kill hitler, most definitely. Your list sounds fine with me. I am struggling with this one: those responsible for the science behind nuclear bombs. I realize that puts Einstein at the top of the group. But, as a group, and given the results of their experiments, would humanity be better served without them. Ah! That's the ticket. I don't so much want to kill them as to wave my hand and have their existence never come into being. I'd still kill hitler, though.....

Your post really twisted my mind tonight.

Mim said...

Hilter KJ?

I don't know Snow - maybe it was all meant to be...

rhymeswithplague said...

This is another "Wow, Snow" post.

Really? Hitler, Stalin, George W. Bush, and Jesus? Rapists, murderers, chronic litterers, and Jesus? Bullies, multiple-offspring druggie moms, Queen Elizabeth, and Jesus?

In the future, please try to separate your thoughts about people who claim to be followers of Jesus but are probably not, and Jesus himself, okay? 8>)

Is there a little of the megalomaniac in you too? There is probably a little of the megalomaniac in all of us. Every last one of us thinks at one time or another we could do it better than God seems to have managed to. Oops, I am generalizing, and all generalizations are false, including this one. I forgot for a minute there that you don't think you could do it better than God because there is no God according to you. But He apparently had thoughts like yours just before he told Noah to build an ark.

It's a reach, I know. But you are one talented blogger.

For the record, I do not think you are insane.

Robin said...

Snow....this is an excellent and thought-provoking post... as someone who usually feels I could not kill.....I know I would feel differently if I had a child or a pet that faced imminent danger....

As for monsterous people of the past.... I wouldn't want to be the one to kill them...I know they met their fate when they met God. (Stop that sarcastic smile....you know I am a Catholic!)

Your previous post was also excellent...although I never gor further than the title....I am a "wuss" when it comes to reading about the cruelty to all animals.....I KNOW it exists...but I just can't handle seeing the photos and reading the details. I applaud YOU though, for having the courage to post about this - because the world neesd to know!

Hugs to you, my friend!

♥ Robin ♥

Marion said...

I don't think I could kill another human being for any reason. Rape fantasies, Snow?? Really??? I'm disappointed in you...

Just_because_today said...

this reminds me of a short film by Bill Cosby I saw in college; "I'm not prejudiced but...."

Kay Dennison said...

Kill someone? I don't think so.

That said, there are some people in the spotlight right now who need a good butt-kickin' -- a brain transplant.

Snowbrush said...

Marion said: "Rape fantasies, Snow?? Really??? I'm disappointed in you..."

As The Shadow used to say on his radio program: "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?' My dear, I can't believe that you are such an innocent. I wouldn't be surprised but what most men have rape fantasies at one time or another, and I likewise wouldn't be surprised but what a great many women have fantasies of being raped. You must remember though, that in both cases, having a fantasy doesn't mean that one would really and truly rape someone, and they certainly don't mean that a person would really and truly want to be raped by someone. (Likewise, I knew a woman who had fantasies of being cannibalized, but I can assure you that she never traveled to Borneo.) Of course, you believe what Jesus said about a person being synonymous with his thoughts, and I do not. Rather, I would hold that a person is synonymous with his deeds.

Marion said: "I don't think I could kill another human being for any reason."

Then you are a pacifist, which is an ethic that I can't even begin to understand. In fact, no philosophy flummoxes me more than pacifism because it seems to me that the pacifist's goal isn't to prevent suffering by protecting the innocent, but rather to stand at a distance and keep one's hands clean while evil has its way. It is a view that, in my mind, is utterly divorced from the realities of the world.

Mim said: "I don't know Snow - maybe it was all meant to be..."

Do you mean to imply, Mim, that you don't feel the need to stand in the way of present evil because you don't know but that "it was meant to be," or do you only have reference to past evil?

Rhymes said: "In the future, please try to separate your thoughts about people who claim to be followers of Jesus but are probably not, and Jesus himself, okay?"

My dear and lovable friend, I meant what I said because the seed of the evil that men do in the name of Jesus was made possible by what Jesus said--or, at least, what he was reported to have said. To give one example, Jesus divided the world into the good people--his followers--and the bad people--those who didn't follow him--(the sheep and the goats as it were). As he himself said, "I came not to bring peace but a sword..." And that he did just that, in spades. (Thanks for the clarification about onanism in regard to the comments section on my last post.)

Simone said: "Given the right circumstances, anyone is capable of anything! You might just as well kill everyone and yourself too for that matter...we are all in the same boat. No one is good."

No, no one is good, but not everyone is a sadist or a sociopath. Also, there is still a tremendous gulf between the evil of a Hitler and the evil of a Simone or a Snowbrush. Besides, I wasn't thinking so much of what was in any given person's heart, but rather what was the result of his or her actions. As for killing everyone, nearly all of earth's creatures would be better off by far if our species never existed, so if I could will it to be so, I would. We have shown ourselves to be singularly depraved and powerful, and that's a nightmarish combination.

Snowbrush said...

Marion, I didn't express my thoughts to you as tactfully as I might have, and for that I am sorry.

Robert the Skeptic said...

There was an excellent Star Trek, Next Generation episode where "Q" gave Picard had the opportunity to go back and live his life over. The episode is called "Tapestry" if you can find it.

Knowing what we know today to be true, one would think that one could alter future events for the better. How would we know? What horrible atrocities viewed changed someone else to resolve to do good? How do we know, that absent the memory, and possibly deterrent effect of some event, would have caused an even worse chain of horror?

If I were poised in time to kill one of these people, I would have doubts that my deed would serve better or worse consequences in the end. It cannot be known.

Snowbrush said...

Robert said: "If I were poised in time to kill one of these people, I would have doubts that my deed would serve better or worse consequences in the end. It cannot be known."

Well, no, but the same is true of the things you are doing now. If you, for example, feed a starving child, how do you know that child won't grow up to be the next Hitler? So, what should any of us do, become immobilized for fear we will screw-up? Only how do we know that THAT won't lead to disaster? All we can ever do--whether in the present or in my fantasy--is to give life our best shot, and hope we did right.

Mim said...

Snow I think about history and changing history vs. doing the right thing now. I would and have stood up against evil in my lifetime, because I am creating history. But I often wonder, if a time machine existed - what would happen if Hitler was killed before he rose to power. Would things be worse now? Better? Certainly different.

I guess the idea is to learn from history and to not allow evil potential dictators to rise to such power.

CreekHiker / HollysFolly said...

"I can sympathize with a great many murderers, but littering is inexcusable"

Very true! Drives me nuts!

I'm from the South (as are you) and grew up knowing that "He needed killin'!" is a legal defense!

I agree with most of your hit list. Except Jesus. I think Jesus was about love and nothing else. It's what "the church" has done in his name that I find truly vile!

And rapists... I've long felt the ONLY possible punishment is public castration before allowing them to bleed to death.

It's like those idiots that killed the Petit women so violently.... we REALLY have to have a trial just to debate whether or not to put them to death??? NO! The only debate to me is HOW to kill them! I am in favor of tying them to a bed, allowing them to be raped and SLOWLY.... S L O W L Y burning the house down after wards. Yeah, that's what kind of gal I am!

Sorry I've been remiss in reading... October is always hell for me!

Snowbrush said...

Mim, I''ll refer you to my reply to Robert in which I put forth the idea that changing the past wouldn't really entail any more guesswork about what is the right thing to do than does acting in the present.

CreekHiker, I liked your reply even if you did advocate lynching. Sorry October is a hard month for you. Oh, my dear, I couldn't sleep for the pain, so I took two Percocet, and they're making me loopy, so maybe I should try going back to bed. A sleeping pill would have worked better, but I've been taking so many of those lately that I'm trying to avoid them for awhile. Three of Peggy's relatives drove up--from Mississippi--for a visit, and I tried to stay bushy-tailed by using sleeping pills. Well, I was still sleepy all day because the pain woke me up a lot despite the pills, and because I've taken them for so long that they're not as effective as they used to be, and because our guests were accustomed to getting up seven hours ahead of our schedule. So, to counteract my sleepiness, I drank massive amounts of coffee, which, of course, made sleep even harder. After they left, I was a bit of a wreck. My sleep is so tenuous anyway that anything that knocks me off schedule in hard to deal with. I wrote to my surgeon yesterday to as if maybe he should go in and do some more work on my left shoulder as it sure is hard to live this way.

Crazed Nitwit said...

Oh jeez I would not to know where to start. Hitler, Ted Bundy, The Green River killer, whoever started America as "the world's peacekeeper". Just off the top of my head.


I'm glad I'll never have to make this decision.

Nothing like bringing up moral quandaries to get a discussion going........

Hugs and much love. Oh, and I'm sending you an angel as well. (snickering evilly)

Snowbrush said...

Nitwit said: "whoever started America as "the world's peacekeeper".'

Well, it was one of us, I'm sure, but then how can we be humble when we've got all those nukes?

Nitwit said: "I'm sending you an angel as well. (snickering evilly)"

I know. I killed him--or was it a her? I shot him dead and cooked him for the dogs. (snickering angelically)

prairienymph said...

Good thoughts. But when is a harm worthy of death? Can it be made up? What of slavers who changed and fought for abolition?

I would prefer to kill the issues leading to these atrocities. Like the culture of rape which makes it seem 'cool' or defines it only as a violent attack from a stranger on a woman wearing a parka who fought until she sustained serious injuries vs any unwanted sexual act.
Like the tribal us-them dichotomies. Like how religions use 'god' to coerce otherwise well-meaning individuals into hating someone because their holy texts demand it.
The idea that 'other' people (women, children, ppl w/ disabilities, ethnic minorities...) aren't as human as others is what I'd get rid of first.

Snowbrush said...

Nymph said: "But when is a harm worthy of death?"

In my fantasy, I get to decide. If you had the same fantasy, you would almost certainly set different criteria. If I were to take every case individually, I would no doubt kill some and let others live, although they were guilty of the same crime. I would do this due to extenuating circumstances. In my fantasy, however, I was dealing largely with groups of people because to deal with people on an individual basis would require more godlike knowledge than even my imagination was capable of conceiving--I can go only so far even in my wildest fantasy.

Nymph said: "I would prefer to kill the issues leading to these atrocities.

You echo what, last I heard, was modern sociology's insistence that society is responsible for the acts of the individual, whether for good or for bad. This implies that individuals can neither be credited nor blamed for their behavior. It also implies that, by changing society, anti-social behavior could be eliminated. I would consider this view to be exaggerated, just as I would consider a view which completely ignored the importance of societal influences to be exaggerated. Individuals, in my view, must be held accountable, at least until such time as the changes that you would advocate can be implemented. As it stands now, I can't imagine how such an implementation would be possible even if you were right in thinking it would work.

Nymph said: "The idea that 'other' people (women, children, ppl w/ disabilities, ethnic minorities...) aren't as human as others is what I'd get rid of first."

Marion and others would extend this view to freshly conceived zygotes, a group that was conspicuously absent from your list. My point is that those qualities that define what constitutes a human being aren't universally agreed upon. For example, I wouldn't define a comatose person for whom recovery was considered impossible to be a human being, and I wouldn't consider someone with advanced Alzheimer's or profound retardation to be a human being either--at least for the purpose of deciding who should live and who should die.

rhymeswithplague said...

I have been sort of with you -- off and on -- until that last terrible sentence. To me, that sounds the most inhuman of all.

Snowbrush said...

Rhymes said: "I have been sort of with you -- off and on -- until that last terrible sentence. To me, that sounds the most inhuman of all."

As I wrote recently, my little schnauzer has lung cancer. We will do what we can to keep him free of pain. When we can no longer do that, and when his pain gets so bad that I would want to die if I were him, then I will have him killed. To do otherwise would be inhumane. In my book, what is horrendously inhumane is that we keep people alive who have no quality of life, who are in pain, and who have no hope for a better future. If the country were run by atheists, I strongly believe that this would change. But since the country is run by Christians who believe that, because humans are made in god's image, it is wrong to euthanize them, we let them suffer. Ironically, Rhymes, most of these same Christians oppose government run healthcare that could alleviate pain and restore to health those who have a chance of leading a full life, yet they will spend countless dollars and call out the legislature (as in Florida) to keep a comatose woman alive indefinitely in a vegetative state. Likewise, they are--generally speaking--enthusiastic about executing criminals (many of whom are later found to have been innocent), and they are--generally speaking--enthusiastic supporters of our many wars; yet god forbid that anyone should abort a fetus. Such views, in my view, absolutely scream inhumanity, yet these are the values by which we are governed, and they are cruel values that make no sense whatsoever except that a great many people imagine that they are the values that god favors, and that he will send to hell anyone who opposes them. I know that you and many other people can scarcely take me seriously when I say I'm an atheist, and when I criticize your religion, yet I truly see no good in it whereas I do see a lot of bad.

I fully believe that, in your heart, you are good and a humane person. I wish you could believe the same about me. Life often entails hard choices, and it requires that we do things that are the opposite of what we want to do. For example, if the only way I could end my dog's suffering were to put a bullet through his head, I could do that. Likewise, except for our cruel laws, I could do the same for a human being, and I would want it done for me.

rhymeswithplague said...

Snow, to recap:

You said, "I wouldn't define a comatose person for whom recovery is considered impossible to be a human being, and I wouldn't consider someone with advanced Alzheimer's or profound retardation to be a human being either--at least for the purpose of deciding who should live and who should die.

I then said, "I have been sort of with you--off and on--until that last terrible sentence. To me, that sounds the most inhuman of all."

You answered, "My little schnauzer dog has lung cancer. We will do what we can to keep him free from pain. When we can no longer do that, and when his pain gets so bad that I would want to die if I were him, I will have him killed. To do otherwise would be inhumane. In my book, what is horrendously inhumane is that we keep people alive who have no quality of life, who are in pain, and who have no hope for a better future."

I agree with you about your dog and with what you say about pain. The leap I cannot make is that someone who is comatose is in pain (isn't the opposite true? the brain shuts off consciousness to alleviate pain), or that someone with advanced Alzheimer's is in pain, or that someone with profound retardation is in pain.

The pain (that is, mental anguish) in the three examples you gave are not in those three types of individuals themselves, but in other members of the human species who have to live with what they observe in the lives of others. This is totally different from wanting to alleviate your dog's pain, which is really in the dog.

Following your logic, perhaps it is the wrong group of people you want to euthanize.

rhymeswithplague said...

And I believe it has been demonstrated that humans in utero do react to pain stimuli as well.

Snowbrush said...

Rhymes, I will admit that late term abortions except under dire circumstances bother me greatly, and that the nearer to term a woman gets, the more likely it is that the fetus is capable of feeling pain. On the other hand, the nervous system is not there from the outset. Rather it slowly develops. It is also true that creatures, including plants and deeply comatose people, appear to react to a stimulus that would cause pain in you or me without having the ability to actually register the stimulus consciously.

I will grant your point that people in a vegetative state don't feel pain, but what exactly are we keeping the light on for if no one is home? Being brain dead is one definition of death, and even in this country, people are disconnected from life support everyday who could have been kept physically alive. It's just a definition that many Christians disagree with for religious reasons. Once someone says that he accepts something because he thinks god said it, all rational conversation is at an end.

But I would euthanize more people than those who are simply brain dead--I would euthanize everyone who is terminal or in intractable pain if they request it. I would also euthanize everyone who is too far gone mentally to make decisions for himself.

Let me share something about myself. I have always been a very good speller, but I have noticed of late that my ability to spell has dropped dramatically. I look at words that the Spell Check catches, and I try hard to remember how to spell them, but in most cases, I can't. Like many people my age, my mental ability is decreasing in various ways, and I naturally fear that I might have some disease that is causing this. If I should, why in the hell should I want to be kept alive when I no longer know who I, my wife, or anyone else is? When I sit around fondling my genitals and shitting in my pants? Why do you call it compassion to keep such people alive at the cost of any amount of trouble and any amount of money when everything about them that either they or anyone else ever loved is gone? Yet, this is the common Christian position. As I pointed out, most Christians, in my experience, are fine with letting people--including children--with curable illnesses suffer and die for a lack of insurance, and they are fine with capital punishment, and they are fine with our constant warfare with other countries, and they are fine with factory farming, and with a host of other atrocities, but, by god, just try to disconnect some vegetative woman in Florida from life support or sell a morning after birth control pill, and the shit hits the fan, because these people see themselves as the moral arbiters for the rest of us, and they hold their values and only their values as compassionate no matter how much senseless suffering those values cause. There is an utter disconnect in their minds between reality and what they imagine that their god wants. Thank goodness that here in Oregon, at least, we have an assisted suicide law, and thank goodness I am married and have given my wife a medical power of attorney and a living will in which I instruct my caregivers to never keep me "alive" when all that is left is an empty shell that resembles the person who I used to be.

Snowbrush said...

P.S. to Rhymes. I know that I wrote with a great deal of passion in reply to your last response, but I hope I didn't blow you out of the water there. This is just an issue that you and I both feel strongly about, and, in writing to you, my feelings regarding what I interpret as the arrogant morality of many Christians comes up, which means that I'm not just writing to you as an individual but to you as a representative of Christianity. This might well be a disservice to what your actual thoughts are, so I welcome any clarification that you might be so kind as to offer.

You might think of me this way. As black people are to whites, atheists are to Christians. What I mean is that when you have a minority group that sees itself as excluded and despised by the majority group, you can expect the members of that minority group to have a lot of anger. Furthermore, the members of the majority group aren't in a good position to understand that anger or to sympathize with it.

Pamela Terry and Edward said...

Well goodness. You are in quite the mood today, aren't you? What a question to ponder. Hitler, well yes. But keep your mitts off the Queen.

And Happy Halloween.

rhymeswithplague said...

Snow, no offense taken (although perhaps you wanted me to take offense? I'm not sure). Kermit the Frog says it ain't easy being green; well, it ain't easy being a representative of Christianity either.

Just to lighten things up, here's a little clip by Steve Martin from last May that I thought you might enjoy (and remember, I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you). I hope you are not offended; it is presented in the spirit of good fun and friendship.

The Atheist Hymnal

rhymeswithplague said...

Well, darn, it didn't work. For a ganer, Google "Atheist Hymnal" +"Steve Martin" +youtube...and go from there.

rhymeswithplague said...

gander

Snowbrush said...

Rhymes, I'll look up the Steve Martin video this week. Right now, I'm in the midst of preparing to lead an atheist group at my house this weekend. I joined the group in May and am now its de facto leader. It's showing signs of really taking off membership-wise, and I have the ability to be the catalyst to making that happen or else to destroy our gains. I'm not feeling up to the task.

Rhymes said: "perhaps you wanted me to take offense? "

No. I would never cause you or anyone else offense gratuitously.

prairienymph said...

Sorry to hear about your dog.
I once watched Blog Fodder put an injured bird out of its misery. I think it was the first time (and last) time I'd seen him cry. My 6? year old self had thought adults could fix such injuries and it was devestating to see that the best thing was quick death.

Good points.

I don't think society can take responsibility for individuals, but it does influence them. Would a suicide bomber still be a suicide bomber if he had been raised in different circumstances? I guess we'll never know for sure.

Zygotes do not feel pain until a certain stage of development. It is a potential human, but so are my skin cells with the technology we now have.

prairienymph said...

Oh- and about rape fantasies...

I sometimes get throwing-small-babies-out-of-windows fantasies.

Usually after several nights of non-stop crying and no sleep.

Does that mean I will ever do it? No! (Unless I have a psychotic episode and am unaware of it.)

Funny, I never get those thoughts after a good sleep while playing with a laughing baby.

Snowbrush said...

Nymph, I too have killed animals because I had no humane choice. I also caused the death of a man once, quite by accident, but it is the animals that caused--and still cause--me the most pain. You might wonder why this is so, and I have no good explanation. I certainly had nothing against the man--I didn't even know him--but he was old, so I could comfort myself with that thought, at least. The animals I killed were, for the most part, dogs that I shot as a volunteer for a humane society. I had no better way to kill them, and I was confident that they didn't suffer physically, but I still think of them these 30 years later with the most intense pain. After I had killed a few pickup truck loads over several different occasions, I chose not to continue. I'm tempted to say that I couldn't continue, but I don't know if that would be true.

Nymph said: "Would a suicide bomber still be a suicide bomber if he had been raised in different circumstances?"

Statistically, probably not, but would we treat him differently if the odds were against his ability to make better choices? After all, if the odds were against him, this would surely imply that he was even more dangerous than if better options came more easily.

Nymph said: "I sometimes get throwing-small-babies-out-of-windows fantasies."

Hey, Marion, I hope you're still reading! (Nymph, Marion wrote that she was disappointed in me over the rape fantasy.) You know, that reminds me of the urges I used to get--I still get them at times, but not so often as I once did--to throw a hot beverage in someone's face. I think that such urges are caused by: (a) having a very active imagination; (b) picturing how horrible it would be to throw coffee in someone's face; and (c) thinking that I might lose control and do just that without wanting to.

Christy said...

Wow! Your list is long. I won't bore you with mine but it may be one answer. It would have to be anyone who discriminates another person. Those who choose to discriminate should not be allowed to walk among us.

Snowbrush said...

Christy said: "I won't bore you with mine but it may be one answer. It would have to be anyone who discriminates another person."

I'm greatly curious about your definition of discrimination, Christy. Because I left conservative Mississippi when I moved to the liberal Willamette Valley, I arrived with a strong accent, and you might have trouble believing how badly I was treated by some people. Now that I'm 61, I'm subject to another form of discrimination. Likewise, many disapprove of my atheism, and then are those who stereotype me because of my race, gender, culture, or nationality. For example, I'm sometimes put down--subtly, for the most part--by a couple of Canadian bloggers who have issues with America. I'm just wondering which of these interactions you would classify as discrimination. I would say that they all, yet they're certainly minor compared to how bad a lot of discrimination is.

Skepticat said...

I'm so glad you posted this. For many years now I've wanted to kill my first husband who molested my little sister.

Obviously, I chose not to do that but there is still a part of me that wants to see him dead.

I've agonized about this for years because a) murder is wrong, and b) I can't be sure he's not out there still hurting little girls. I struggle with guilt for wanting him dead and guilt for not killing him.

After reading your post and the responses, I feel more human now.