He Must Have Done Something Before

[Major Kong]

Hello MK. Thanks.

Of course, some behaviours were completely proscribed by the 19th c prevailing Weltanschauung. Hence, what you describe was unthinkable--although the impetus was the same.

Cheers.
LC

Hey Lynn,
I'll accept the notion that as you put it, "some behaviours were completely proscribed by the 19th c prevailing Weltanschauung." But I think this was more within upper-class society at that time. Again I point out that this "unthinkable" behavior only works if applied to psychologically stable individuals. Example: many think that school shooting are a late 20th/21st century phenomenon; they are not. There are numerous examples of individuals(both in the United States and Europe, mostly in the US granted...the gun culture here in the US goes back a loooong way...lol) during the 19th century and 20th century walking into schools and shooting and killing children. Am I making sense?
If not, just wack me over the head and I'll go back to my corner.....

Kong

[Hunter]

Verizini must not have gotten the behavior memo.

[Major Kong]

Verizini must not have gotten the behavior memo.

Vampires don't count Hunter!

[lynn cates]

blank

Hello MK. Thanks.

Which European walked into a school in the 19th c and began shooting? I'm drawing a blank.

Cheers.
LC

[Major Kong]

Hello MK. Thanks.

Which European walked into a school in the 19th c and began shooting? I'm drawing a blank.

Cheers.
LC

Hey Lynn,
I should have clarified my statement better...
The shootings during the 19th century are limited to to the US...but Heinz Schmidt in 1913 killed 4 female students and wounded 20. Also in 1923 there was a school shooting in New Zealand. So there are instances in the early 20th century of this behavior. I would posit that if one did the research there is a history of rampage killings in Europe during the 19th c.

I think we're getting off track here though...I do agree with you that such behavior was "unthinkable" in mid-upper class Victorian England...but I believe Whitechapel falls outside this classification due to the extreme poverty and "melting pot" of various people and cultures.

[Observer]

Hi King
As far as human behaviour is concerned there's nothing new under the Sun, so yes I would agree with you.

[Observer]

Verizini must not have gotten the behavior memo.

He got the email apparently, but was computer illiterate.

[sepiae]

unfriending by club

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

I mean only that HOW one expresses human nature is likely linked to the era in which one lives. So, for example, a human propensity is to feel jealousy. Hence, an upper-paleolithic man feeling slighted by a more virile neighbour might bop him with his club. Today, one is more likely to blog against such a one or "unfriend" him. Same nature, different behaviour.

I meant that your feeling the tension in the two theories was good.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,
sorry for late reply, had to rush yesterday.

Oh yes, for sure, no doubt there! Absolutely agree.
Although some paleolithic men still exist, I assure you

I would add, though, that the specifics of what has been done and how are extreme, and it's no contradiction to me that they compare to other extremes when it comes to murder. In other words, I'm not sure to what degree your differentiation applies. The question of psychology here [not a school, not a therapeutic approach, but speculations about psyche] entails motive, among other things. This is for me a step deeper into the intimate even, and at the [very] bottom I believe we're dealing pretty much with the same, no matter the modernisation of means and what they imply as for method.

I don't know whether a lengthy elaboration on this would be something you'd care to read [or sigh over], otherwise I'd like to order my thoughts following a rather astonishing idea I've listened to on one the podcasts...

[lynn cates]

idea

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Only if you wish.

Good luck with the new idea.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

Hello Sepiae. Thanks.

Only if you wish.

Good luck with the new idea.

Cheers.
LC

uhm, I take that for a 'no'...?

[No about a 'new idea', though...]

Anyways, got to go again.
Have a good evening

[Fisherman]

Rader: Tortured animals as a child. As a dogcatcher, overly zealous.

Ridgway: Insatiable sexual appetite, frequenter of prostitutes while married, religious nut

Not such good guys.


Mike

The thing is, Mike, that I am not as such speaking about what these guys TRULY were, but instead about how they were perceived by people around them.

I think we all know that they would have been bad men as such. What interests me is that you can be a bad man but still enjoy a decent or good reputation. If it later emerges that you used to torture animals, it really does not mean that this deviancy must have been known to people around you.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

The thing is, Mike, that I am not as such speaking about what these guys TRULY were, but instead about how they were perceived by people around them.

I think we all know that they would have been bad men as such. What interests me is that you can be a bad man but still enjoy a decent or good reputation. If it later emerges that you used to torture animals, it really does not mean that this deviancy must have been known to people around you.

In my case, they were only stuffed animals.

Mike

[Fisherman]

In my case, they were only stuffed animals.

Mike

Yuck ...!

Fisherman

[John Wheat]

Or something afterwards...I doubt he'd just stop killing.

[GUT]

Or something afterwards...I doubt he'd just stop killing.

G'day John

I find it hard to believe he stopped of his own volition.