I understand what SE10 is trying to say (i think) he just worded it wrongly with the word fault.
If what you are trying to say is you cannot do anything about thinking something, but can on their actions or intentions, then I agree.
You can though fault their thought process if you believe their thought process is wrong.
My views are with Gonnerhater, the scum should be fairly trialled but not given an ounce of publicity / platform.
That is exactly what I meant.
you can not fault SE10 on his views.
all he meant was that everyone is entitled to thier opinion, but they shouldnt act on them if it means anything more than tripping a noisy child up at tescos or pulling a wedgie on your ex wife.
Give me his side arm and assault rifle and see what i do with them.
looks like the borg cube, and i dont mean the semi handsome swedish tennis player related to the mask in V for vendetta. (yes my mind does work that way)
Certainly not 'mwahahaha, killing is fuuuuun' crazy but for anyone to genuinely believe A) his conspiracy type theory is correct and bombing and gunning down innocent kids is justified in ANY way they must have certain screws loose.
I mean, I guess that anyone is indeed entitled to have an opinion, however vile it may be. My personal opinion is that whether found insane or not the world would be well shot (no pun intended) of Breivik once he's gone.
I know a Hitler comparison is normally meant to signal the end of a discussion, but it is valid here. He is going for a similar defence that Hitler used in 1923, i.e. I'm not sorry, I'd do it again, I did it for my country. I think he might find that the judge is a lot less sympathetic than Hitler's was.
'As the American criminologist Jack Levin has put it, what is sickening is not necessarily sick.
It also confuses “madness” (a philosophical notion) with “insanity” (a legal term). Breivik is obviously aberrant, but he was throughout resourceful, determined, careful, purposeful; “mad” if you like, but perfectly sane in his ghastly ambition and his deliberations as to how to achieve it. Even worse, his public preening suggests that he was nurturing his self-esteem, that he needed to assert his will by encountering obstacles and dealing with them successfully. He probably felt elated when his task had been accomplished.
The court can only, of course, deal with the facts as they are presented; but one must hope that a by-product of the jury’s verdict will be the final humiliation and banishment from society of this wilful and deeply unpleasant man.'
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, it's just a damn shame that they're not able to reflect on them sometimes and move past them.
Clearly having irrational hatred towards immigrants, has no benefit to the individual or wider society. Losing that hatred and spending some time educating yourself, or helping your neighbour, might not be so self-defeating as holding impotent anger.
I won't defend all views, you can think them, but thank god I don't have to live with your imploding world view.
As for insanity what is it? An opinion by varying professionals to give a vested inerest decision, on whether someone has mental illness or defect. Then in this country the jury decides. Without a verifiable diagnosis such as schizophrenia, born out by prolonged periods of delusional behaviour, insanity is just opinion. Interesting that the insanity plea goes back to ancient times, fortunately small country views and irrational mono-ethnic dystopias descend into history with little positive or sustaining mark on culture/cultures.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, it's just a damn shame that they're not able to reflect on them sometimes and move past them.
Clearly having irrational hatred towards immigrants, has no benefit to the individual or wider society. Losing that hatred and spending some time educating yourself, or helping your neighbour, might not be so self-defeating as holding impotent anger.
I won't defend all views, you can think them, but thank god I don't have to live with your imploding world view.
As for insanity what is it? An opinion by varying professionals to give a vested inerest decision, on whether someone has mental illness or defect. Then in this country the jury decides. Without a verifiable diagnosis such as schizophrenia, born out by prolonged periods of delusional behaviour, insanity is just opinion. Interesting that the insanity plea goes back to ancient times, fortunately small country views and irrational mono-ethnic dystopias descend into history with little positive or sustaining mark on culture/cultures.
Having said that apparently 25% of the population in eastern Oslo is immigrants so it's no wonder there is a simmering tension.
I know Oslo. Don't believe that figure for a minute. Breivik himself has been putting out some figures which have immediately been discredited. There's definitely a discussion, and so there should be, but "East Oslo" whatever area that is meant to be, is definitely not Dagenham and Barking. I think the appalling price of appalling beer is a bigger issue for most of the Norwegians I know.
He's a borderline ginger with a severe inferioriity complex like all the losers that hold such views. Rather like most of the posters on Charlton Life I'm not a qualified psychologist and haven't really studied the case, but on a knee jerk I'd say he's completely sane/rational, he just thinks differently to how other people think and unlike most of these types has the venom and planning skills to act on his impotent rage. Typical of a caged killer to start trying to make himself feel special by acting up, it's teenycock syndrome on a massive scale.
To me it seems that his rampage was driven more by a grotesque desire to kill people indiscriminately than anything else. His actions may have been ordered and planned but the reasoning which led him to carry out those actions place him completely beyond the boundaries of any rational civilised human being. The real danger is that the trial becomes a circus and he becomes a figure of focus. He is a killer with a distorted view of the world and himself. Personally, I think the trial should be terminated quickly and Breivik should be shut away away from all further publicity. A truly dreadful story with so many innocent victims, and an utterly misguided human being at its centre.
Is what he did worse than a 'religious war'? Or any war? Is he worse than the 'heroes' in Iraq and Afghan killing people who have different views to us?
Is what he did worse than a 'religious war'? Or any war? Is he worse than the 'heroes' in Iraq and Afghan killing people who have different views to us?
Hardly a war. Load of defenceless kids sitting round a camp fire singing ' if you're happy and you know it"
He's completely sane. Much like Islamists he has taken a legitimate grievance and used that to justify mass murder in his own mind. You dont need to be clinically insane to reach that point, just wrapped up in your own ideology.
For Islamists it is the illegitimate wars waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, for Brevik it is a politically driven program of mass immigration and the problem of accomadating Islam in a liberal secular society. Both of them are fair points for debate.
He's completely sane. Much like Islamists he has taken a legitimate grievance and used that to justify mass murder in his own mind. You dont need to be clinically insane to reach that point, just wrapped up in your own ideology.
I really can't agree with that. However passionate you are about an ideology, you have to be way beyond 'unbalanced' to decide to start killing people.
Comments
I said I could kill for an Ice Cream...
Back to work.... be back after 8... could kill for one of them too,
all he meant was that everyone is entitled to thier opinion, but they shouldnt act on them if it means anything more than tripping a noisy child up at tescos or pulling a wedgie on your ex wife.
Just an Evil wicked man with Political views that when in the mind of truely wicked evil people it ends up with 1 result
Hitler
Brevik no real difference just the scale of the attrocicity
I mean, I guess that anyone is indeed entitled to have an opinion, however vile it may be. My personal opinion is that whether found insane or not the world would be well shot (no pun intended) of Breivik once he's gone.
It also confuses “madness” (a philosophical notion) with “insanity” (a legal term). Breivik is obviously aberrant, but he was throughout resourceful, determined, careful, purposeful; “mad” if you like, but perfectly sane in his ghastly ambition and his deliberations as to how to achieve it. Even worse, his public preening suggests that he was nurturing his self-esteem, that he needed to assert his will by encountering obstacles and dealing with them successfully. He probably felt elated when his task had been accomplished.
The court can only, of course, deal with the facts as they are presented; but one must hope that a by-product of the jury’s verdict will be the final humiliation and banishment from society of this wilful and deeply unpleasant man.'
Small extract taken from a thoughtful article in the Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206958/Anders-Breivik-isnt-mad-he-was-a-man-on-a-mission.html
Clearly having irrational hatred towards immigrants, has no benefit to the individual or wider society. Losing that hatred and spending some time educating yourself, or helping your neighbour, might not be so self-defeating as holding impotent anger.
I won't defend all views, you can think them, but thank god I don't have to live with your imploding world view.
As for insanity what is it? An opinion by varying professionals to give a vested inerest decision, on whether someone has mental illness or defect. Then in this country the jury decides. Without a verifiable diagnosis such as schizophrenia, born out by prolonged periods of delusional behaviour, insanity is just opinion. Interesting that the insanity plea goes back to ancient times, fortunately small country views and irrational mono-ethnic dystopias descend into history with little positive or sustaining mark on culture/cultures.
The real danger is that the trial becomes a circus and he becomes a figure of focus.
He is a killer with a distorted view of the world and himself. Personally, I think the trial should be terminated quickly and Breivik should be shut away away from all further publicity.
A truly dreadful story with so many innocent victims, and an utterly misguided human being at its centre.
Probably only get 4 of his recommended 5 fruit and veg a day. Playstation off by nine.
For Islamists it is the illegitimate wars waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, for Brevik it is a politically driven program of mass immigration and the problem of accomadating Islam in a liberal secular society. Both of them are fair points for debate.