©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†

To my knowledge, the discussion is legal so long as it doesn't take on a conspiratorial vibe (i.e. words such as "we should" and "you should" should be avoided). Or someone describes how to build a nuke (for obvious reasons).

And now, a few common misconceptions (mainly fingerprint related, apparently ). So they are some things you might consider when planning your perfect crime (though if you seriously consider the first one, ewwww):

-edit- put in spoiler since it was kinda long. May work on the actual perfect crime portion a bit as well at some point in future.


I could go on, but I grow bored. The perfect crime is the one that you yourself are investigating. By interfering with the collection of evidence and systematically destroying all that is found, you can more or less bring an investigation to a standstill. Naturally, this would work much better in an area where there are fewer police and crime scene technicians so your responsibilities would increase accordingly. Granted, this is still far from perfect. I guess I just like the idea of this kind of thing, you know? Police officer breaking the law, arson investigator starting fires, psychologist that encourages and drives people towards insanity. I guess I like any excuse to be cynical.

Otherwise, the more complex a crime, the more disastrous the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer

While it is easy to say that the Zodiac Killer committed the perfect crime in that they didn't get caught, it is important to remember that there have been astronomical advances in forensics since the killings. Jack the Ripper was also never caught (to anyone's knowledge), but things might not have turned out so well for the fella in this day and age, or even in the '70s. Anyhow, the Zodiac killer left plenty of evidence behind. Given enough manpower and resources, would their luck have remained? That someone does not get caught does not necessarily speak to the chance that their crime would result in conviction, and I think the latter is a better metric for how "perfect" a crime is. There are far too many imponderables related to actually "getting caught" or being identified as the perpetrator. If the police have no case, it doesn't even matter if they know in their guts that you are the guilty party. On the other hand, there might be a crime scene where the perpetrator bled all over the place, rolled around in paint and put his hands all over the walls, vomited a very unusual breakfast, left a note for police with very distinct handwriting, accidentally shot his foot (thus having to go to the hospital), driven his pickup through the living room (leaving muddy tire tracks everywhere), and so on and so forth. If the bloke doesn't get caught, then can we really say this is the perfect crime? He has clearly left behind ample evidence that points very directly to a suspect, the only problem is that the suspect is unknown. The problem with serial killers isn't a lack of evidence, it is the apparent randomness in choice of victims which makes it difficult to come up with a viable suspect or a strategy to more or less catch them red-handed. I'd say that serial killers, the Zodiac Killer included, leave far too much up to chance for any of their crimes to be considered perfect. It's like monkeys with typewriters and Shakespeare. Eventually, one bastard is gonna get lucky.

Of course, there is a great deal of fascination and myth surrounding serial killers. To an extent, they embody humanity at its darkest. Most of us don't just wake up and say "I'm going to kill someone", get dressed, kiss our wife good-bye, and do just that. There is something both deeply compelling and repellent to the notion that fuels the desire to understand and know more about just what makes these people tick, almost as if this can tell us something about ourselves. The attention is largely undeserved in my opinion. These are not mysterious authority figures, some kind of godheads to be marveled at from afar. They are sickness, but they're still human.

Of course there always will be crimes that won't be solved, those aren't really perfect crimes though. It is just that there are limitations to the ability of those that are trying to solve the crime.

Precisely.

Steal some Nee-chans panties Mission Impossible style.

But at what cost? Jumping up and down like a maniac on Oprah? Hardly seems worth it.

Tor services via Bitcoin are often honeytraps or scams. The Hidden Wiki has a decent verified list, but come on, how much can you trust a site asking for payment of a service over the internet, when you have no way to reprimand the person for not following through?

I must admit, the notion of a list of verified Bitcoin-accepting Tor mercenaries was good for a laugh.

I agree with you for the most part, but I don't really like the idea of teaching "good" values, because what you think is good may not be for another person. Of course there are values considered good by the majority of the society ( I'm not saying that what is good is what the majority likes) but I think that someone has to forge himself and his opinions, even if he diverges from what the society deems good after. Maybe we should just teach people the "basics", just what's necessary so that they can make their own opinions on what's good and evil. Not sure if I was clear, sometimes my english is not good enough to translate what I want to say ^^'

[It's perfectly clear, and I agree.]

If it feels ''sooo good'' to harm people maybe you should try to suffer a little to understand what people feel when you hurt them. It's a pity you are not in front of me, I would have helped you understand it. With all due respect, of course !

[My father beat me quite regularly when I was a child, to the extent that he finally lost it completely and my mother had to call child protective services. I grew up in a household with an autistic brother who couldn't talk, and for a certain period of time in his tragic life was shuffled between mental institutions. Over the course of two weeks, my grandfather died in my home. I watched my uncle succumb to alcohol addiction over the course of several years. But if you believe you can teach me the meaning of suffering, then by all means be my guest. I've never gone hungry, and I'm almost always happy so I have no right to complain. If anything, I suppose you could say that I deserve to suffer more for having been so lucky. That doesn't mean I haven't had my share of hardships. As I'm sure you're well aware, life isn't a cakewalk for anybody. And now you are just misrepresenting my position. When did I ever say doing something that "feels sooo good" that society deems wrong automatically equates to harming others? Perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps you think that the word of a broken society is law when it comes to right and wrong. I'll assume the former fits the bill here.]

Oh my … ''Cthulhu something''. With all due respect, just by looking at the pseudonym, I think of a disturbed young man with a sophisticated haircut, tattoos, wearing super expensive gothic clothes and skull rings, maybe using make up, mascara, etc. Your motto is probably ''F*ck God, hail Satan'' or something like that.

[Maybe I am, and maybe it is. Guess we can find out when you teach me the meaning of suffering in person, eh?

Regardless, I think you are grossly overestimating the chasm between our two positions, in fact, embarrasingly so. ]

The word culture itself means ''what is different from nature''. How do you expect me to take you seriously after that ? Lions kill antelopes to feed themselves, it is something they are genetically programmed for, their bodies are made for that purpose.

[Okay. What is "different from nature"? That which goes against our instincts? What instincts does culture go against? I'm not saying you're wrong, or even strongly espousing any particular point, albeit in a pseudological fashion (indeed, I am the antithesis of a philosopher). I'm going to break the fourth wall for a moment here.

I like asking loaded questions, and making fallacious arguments. Oops! My bad. But look what came out. You, and you've dealt with me in an honest, and at points brutal, fashion. You have let down your guard and revealed your hand in ways you otherwise might never have done.

I am but a fool... a simpleton. I may be a purveyor of nonsense, but sometimes white noise is the greatest truth serum there is... Other than truth serum. That stuff is really powerful! Back to discussion!

I'm going to stop you here. The way you phrase this makes it sound a bit as if lions evolved the way they did with a certain end goal in mind. They didn't. Besides that, you are basically reiterating a point I was making. I just wanted you to say it for me, and I knew if I made the statement ridiculous enough then you yourself would provide the initial foundation for my argument, as follows.

Point is, we are not genetically programmed to kill old ladies (of course!), but we sure as the light of day do have it within ourselves to kill. Perhaps we just confuse the situation somehow? Instead of killing an animal for food, or out of self-defense, or for some sort of territorial/competitive reason, we simply kill an old lady in a wheelchair. My point is that I'm not particularly convinced that there is something "unnatural" about this action, as opposed to this being an example how nature is imperfect and regardless of how "programmed" we are to act in a certain way, our "programming" can still be tricked or confused in a given situation. Additionally, if we accept the notion that this there is any genetic "programming" at all with regards to our behavior, then we must also accept the possibility that mutations as well may affect our behavior to some certain extent. If some mutation were to cause aberrant behavior, "evil" behavior, then would you still argue that a world without evil is possible? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that our behavior is influenced by genetics, further still to indicate that our brain regulates our behavior. I may get hit hard in the head. A bullet may blow part of my brain out, and the next day I kill someone completely innocent and I can't even help it. Is intent all that would matter in this case? If so, my actions in and of themselves might not be considered evil, but what about those close to the victim? Can you say with any degree of certainty that evil thoughts wouldn't cross their mind... thoughts that they might act upon?

Going back to what you said about culture, you and I clearly have different ideas about what "culture" entails. To me, culture is all about our interaction with one another and our environment. Indeed, the environment in which we are raised, in addition to our natural tendencies (and herein lies the distinction), provides the very basis for every single culture in existence. And that is my point. I would argue that there is a perfectly natural basis for culture. We may indeed separate it, but this would be no different than separating the heart from the circulatory system. All we're really doing is looking something over in finer detail, all the while using an analogy that doesn't make much sense. Regardless, my reasoning to you may seem slightly unconventional, but as far as I am concerned it is foolish to consider culture (within the confines of this discussion) without even a basic application of human biology. To me, cultures provide a blueprint as to how we respond when exposed to different stimuli. Ultimately, this appears to be an issue of semantics, hardly something worth disregarding everything I have to say over. <he still has a tongue. still... cat hasn't got it. Yet. ]

Excision is obviously harmful to women and in normal circumstances it should be forbidden, but it could have been useful for a community for a reason or another. Personally, I would have never imagined someone could think of doing excisions to solve a problem of adultery but who am I to judge?

[Precisely. Who are you to judge? You would like to say it is evil and that is that, but are hesitant to do so. And if you can't judge, then how can you teach kids not to do evil? We generally tell kids to be good and use their best judgement already, so if that's all you are saying we should do then it's clearly not enough for an ideal world without evil (i.e. I'm asking for clarification on how we would go about teaching these things). The rest of what you say above this is absolutely correct and I agree with you 100%. I must admit that I am a bit iffy with the notion that adultery is a huge problem, but as you said it is about cohesion. At some time, regardless of reason (absurd or rational), they adopted this measure for the health of the social order, and by avoiding whatever negative effects may have resulted, they increased their chance for survival. This is not to say that all traditions are actually helpful to survival. Other than psychological benefits (I guess?), there is not much so far as reasons to suppose that human sacrifice is particularly beneficial. It may be easier than keeping your enemies alive, sure. But if you were to kill your own people... Still, there are cultures that at one point or another did this. Nor would it be accurate to say "once a boon, always a boon". As you say, it is important to keep in mind where certain practices and traditions come from and question whether they are harmful or even necessary.]

My reasoning was logical and it has been explained long ago by J.J. Rousseau, who is the father of modern philosophy. I explained it with my words but the idea is not from me.

[I never said your reasoning wasn't logical. I merely challenged you on your assertion that people who would claim good and evil don't exist are either uncivilized or liars. Good and evil are words that we assign with meaning based upon something extant. Therefore they exist. Clearly someone who would make the aforementioned claim isn't going to argue that good and evil, as words, do not exist. It is a matter of the meaning assigned to those words which they are calling into question, and that is a key distinction to make. In that particular statement, you presented us with a false dichotomy based upon a strawman. Of course I'm going to call you out on it. Jean Jacques Rousseau may have proved a great inspiration for certain aspects of your post, but proves irrelevant to, what here, was the point of contention. Additionally, when modern biology comes into play I am pretty much the authority here by default. Sorry, long-since-dead dude!]

"Saying that good and evil don't exist in nature, that they are cultural notions, means that they are not natural characteristics. You understand ? It's pure logic."

[Pure logic does not indicate true reality. Logic determines whether a certain argument is internally consistent within an existing framework. That is all. I can say that good and evil do exist in nature, and that can be "pure logic" too. It certainly doesn't mean I'm right. Just because a stance is logical, this hardly means we have to embrace it. As new facts come to light and different interpretations of the evidence arise, new frameworks are built and old frameworks change accordingly. It's just the way of the world I suppose. ]

"And if we admit that good and evil are not natural characteristics but cultural values, it means that we can create a society without good, or a society without evil."

[We can certainly do many things. We can improve distribution methods so that food gets to those who need it. We can help people work towards self-sufficiency. We can develop more sustainable ways of life. We can discourage certain behaviors and encourage others by removing or introducing certain stimuli. However, you can't extirpate the natural inclination of humans to behave in certain ways without genetic engineering or selective breeding... or you could try lobotomies. If you would like to go down that road... Hey, I consider it highly immoral, but good luck to you . Please note, I wouldn't even dream of suggesting you advocate this. I'm just being silly. It's my way. Discussion without any shiny objects is terribly droll.

You are absolutely right that in many ways society is set up such that it is a great promoter of evil behaviors. In many ways, I believe that evil is a symptom of growing pains leading to a gradual shift from egalitarian to ever increasingly stratified societies.

With regards to a "society without good", it simply can't exist. Not even because "it is impossible to eradicate good", but because it is impossible for a society to exist on evil alone. There would have to be at least some good in the mix. Simply put, a society of evil is a contradiction of terms. An absurdity. An oxymoron of epic proportions.]

"Mankind doesn't need a guy who thinks ''why should someone be punished for doing something that feels sooo good, just because society deems it evil ?''."

[Mankind doesn't "need" anything. That being said, this is exactly what philosophy needs. When you present a logical argument, you don't just say "this is what I think". You should constantly challenge your own assumptions as opposed to just accepting something because it's convenient. The latter fosters an attitude that results in stagnation. Are you telling me you never bothered to challenge your assumptions? I'm sure this is not the case. And that's all I'm really espousing here. You act as if my post said "loot, pillage, maim, kill!". Not so! I never condoned killing nor anything else of the sort. Apologies if I came off that way, but it certainly wasn't intentional.]

in good PERSON, there is a little evil. in evil PERSON, a little good. how you explain a good that's evil?

[I was actually thinking in terms of our actions, so I can't particularly say I disagree. Sorry for the confusion.]

"and so my statements still stand.
Evil is Something that aren't Good"

[And I agree. But if we further state that Good is the antithesis of evil, then we are left with two statements that are both extraordinarily meaningful and ultimately powerless.]

"Think of Something real bad, and i mean it REEAAL BAD. for example: Killing someone
now Think of it being done to you or anyone that you most cared for.

as the victim. Would you feel real good? excited? amuse? Happy?"

[As the victim? If I were killed then I'd be dead. However, if someone close to me were killed then of course I would be upset. I may even seek some form of vengeance depending on the circumstances. It is hard to comprehend how one might react in such terrible situations when we as a people often have little knowledge or familiarity with the darkness that resides within us all.]

"every moral teaching that ever been recorded, may be all down to one root: "Do not do something you do not want done to you.""

[I rather imagine this to be almost true, to the extent that if it is harmful to others, then it will be harmful to you. As such, it is advantageous to not break this rule in the long run. But it is also important to recognize that for everything that is said here, there is also much that is not said, be it "do unto others as they have done unto you" or "do harm unto others if it proves to be beneficial on the whole". My point is, I'd say that society in general follows a somewhat more self-serving perversion of the golden rule. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, merely that survival is paramount.]

But good people don't need evil people. Mankind doesn't need a guy who thinks ''why should someone be punished for doing something that feels sooo good, just because society deems it evil ?''.I made the effort to respond to your post but I won't continue the debate with you, sorry. It was already too much for me. Bye.

[color=#000000][Good people need evil people to draw a line in the sand when everybody starts giving their food to dogs because they "feel bad". Good people need evil people to say "if you want to eat our food, then you're going to help with the harvest". Granted, this blurs the line between being assertive and being evil, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest there is at least a tiny bit of callous disregard for others in such actions.

Evil people may "manipulate", "lie", and "exploit", but if good people are really so helpless that they get suckered in every single time, then they need people who are willing to get their hands dirty in order to protect others. The man with the gun to your head won't flinch at a hunger strike. If you are unwilling to fight back, then there is a decent possibility that you're dead. But if you are willing to fight back, then by all means you are capable and willing to fight. As long as we are threatened, we can not... we will not be, purely good. We simply can't afford it.

With regards to your effort to respond, I thank you. It would be remiss of me to suggest I'm not a handful, and it must have taken a massive amount of patience on your part not to judge me at all in your post. Whether you choose to respond to, or even read what I have to say is your choice entirely, and it is a decision I will respect.]

[Good is that which makes our brains all warm and fuzzy. Because our brains can feel stuff. True story.

Good is derived from that which is biologically favored. It is a fickle mistress, and an even worse friend.]

we just have to educate the population to value good and hate evil, by always congratulating good and always punishing evil.

[With all due respect, this sounds more than a little dangerous. Why should someone be punished for doing something that feels sooo good, just because society deems it evil. More importantly, it is not our duty to teach people what is good or evil, or even which one to value. What we should be doing instead is providing them with whatever tools they need to make these decisions for themselves. Obsolete values must be questioned, not embraced, and certainly not foist upon those incapable of making those determinations for themselves.

material of a slightly more adult nature below. Hold your children's ears so they can't see a thing.

those who say that good and evil don't exist are either stupid (uncultivated) or liars.

[You're wrong, because the very notion that you could be right is emotionally displeasing to me. Also because discussion of the existence of something so loosely, so arbitrarily defined is rather pointless. Calling these people stupid is no better than calling those who say that axybladdxr doesn't exist dolts because "axybladdxr" is (or was) obviously the example given for how to solve cryptograms in the NYT. Clearly, in the course of normal conversation, nobody would know what in the world you were talking about until you very specifically said "this is what axybladdxr is". So it isn't really that these things "don't exist". It's that discussion as to the capacity in which they exist is pointless unless we take steps to further define them. This could be what some of these uncultivated liars meant, but you definitely shouldn't trust me because I'm telling the truth. As to others, you could be misrepresenting their argument. Perhaps they merely suggested the kind of good and evil you propose are nonexistent? Perhaps they have alternative notions about existence itself? Maybe they really are idiots? Indeed, I would call myself an idiot, but yea this is a virtue. For I am absolutely right about everything.
Regardless, I see no reason to accept your opinion stated as fact as a fact, as in fact I don't think it's fact, but your opinion, and that's a fact. The notion that I can simply take at face value your correctness in stating that some unknown personages are barbaric nincompoops when I haven't heard their side of the story is clearly flawed. Additionally, I refuse to lend additional credence to the rest of your post as a result of your spurious victory over the apparent masked simpletons of yesteryear. Fear me, for I shall not be lulled into a false sense of security by... Oh look. Streetlights. And people! ]

"Nobody is innocent, there are merely varying levels of guilt." "The first side that claims it is just or good usually gains public favor regardless of its real intention." Imo my moral compass hardly points north, I usually only do things that benefit me and ignore all others that have no direct involvement to me. My personal opinion is there is no good nor evil, just idiots who spend pitifully spend their time pointlessly debating over what "they" believe is good or bad and then pushing their beliefs on others.

[It goes without saying I'm not an idiot. That being said, you're wrong, and should pay closer attention to what I have to say. What with me being right and all.]

[On an almost serious note, a reason for discussion is that thought often precedes action. Thankfully, many become lost in thoughtful inaction.]

Besides, little children, before the age of reason, are not considered good or evil, they are too young to understand these notions.

[Perhaps little children have us beat, and we are too old to understand nature. You suggest that good and evil are cultural things, but you fail to separate "culture" from nature in any meaningful sense. How is killing an antelope ultimately any different from killing an old lady in a wheelchair (besides the Norngstrot Scale of Funniness, of course)? Is it that the former is only done for survival? If so, then why would you be convinced that, when it really boils down to it, the latter is not? Are we perhaps innately evil simply because we possess a certain "intelligence" that we claim animals do not? If so, then why would you later go on to say that a world without evil is possible? Surely this must either mean that evil is something present in us that we can expel from ourselves, or something that is acquired? In the case of the former, how do we go about expunging evil? Do we teach our children to hate evil? We can teach our children not to breath, but they shall breath nonetheless. It is natural, instinctual. If they somehow succeed at holding their breath until they die, then they will die. And that's what happens when you die. I am unsure what teaching children to hate evil would do beyond teach them to hate themselves, which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world since kids suck and they deserve to live with that knowledge, but still...
<he's sad because he's fat

In the case of the latter, how exactly does one "acquire" evil? They grow up and do something wrong? We've all done something "wrong". Because 1% of the population has 90% of the riches? Wasn't the case for me. I just did bad things, and I still do. I certainly wasn't perfect as a child or a teenager, and without a doubt I'm perfect now, except for the part about being perfect.]

A world without evil is possible, because good and evil are not natural characteristics but cultural values, we just have to educate the population to value good and hate evil, by always congratulating good and always punishing evil.

[You say this, but is a world without sociopaths and other mentally ill personages possible? I disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion that good and evil are not natural characteristics but cultural values. Good and evil may be defined by the given culture, and a given culture may encourage or discourage certain good or evil behavior. However, we act certain ways in certain situations because of our nature. The reason we don't always act the same way is because our minds allow a certain flexibility due to the imprecision of nature and the myriad of different situations we face. It's not like we suddenly come across a new situation and say "I'm gonna do something outta the blue!". We cycle through similar situations and perhaps alter our behavior slightly in accordance. If you are to argue that good and evil are not innate, then will you argue they are the result of environmental (cultural) influences? A result of nurture? There is a somewhat false distinction and separation of the two. It's all nature really, but people just like to minimize nature... to segment it into pieces, in order to give themselves the illusion of control when the reality of the situation is that we are pretty much reactive and not proactive beings. Granted, this separation is also useful because it allows us to examine environmental influences more closely. There are times when this line becomes more than a little fuzzy however (e.g. environment influences gene expression... organisms not only responding to, but modifying their surroundings). But I digress. You can dress cultural values in a monocle and tophat, but that doesn't make it any less a part of nature. It's not like 1% of the population just woke up one day and said "Ohmehgerd, we rich!". That was something they acquired, perhaps in part due to geography (nature), in part due to their culture (nature), and in part due to their nature (nature). Nature gave them their power and wealth. Nature is not only overpowered, nature is the source of all evil in humanity, nay, the world. As you implicitly suggest in your post, a world without evil is not only possible, but ideal. Therefore we must destroy nature. However, the destruction of nature would not improve the living conditions of others. Quite the opposite in fact. From this we can draw two possible conclusions.

1. The destruction of nature, ergo evil, is evil.
2. Improving the living conditions of people the world over (embracing nature), is evil.

Take your pick. Unless... there is something you'd like to add? <he's wearing a mask over half his face. Because he can.]

so I guess you could sum it into "Something that aren't Good" .

[In good, there is a little evil. In evil, a little good.]