They say us criminals have differnt brains

muffinsmuffins Regular
edited July 2010 in Man Cave
I found this on google earlier and found it kinda interesting well some of the not science stufff

A quote about the book


Sander’s description of the subjective mental states that typify the criminal mind relies heavily on the clinical studies by Yochelson and Samenow. He focuses, however, on only some of the key features of the criminal mind that they identify: fear, anger, corrosion of deterrents, cutoff of deterrents, hyperoptimism, and lying. The recurring theme in Sander’s analysis of these features is that criminals experience these mental states in strikingly different ways from responsible people. The general argument is that criminals live, as it were, in their own private world, driven by their inner inclinations, thoughts, emotions, and perceptions and subject to few outside influences on their mental states. This argument helps to explain why criminals have so little regard for the interests of others, fail to assess realistically the consequences of their conduct, and continuously ruminate about their fantasies and daydream about their crimes.

For example, Sander tells us that fear is deeply rooted in the personality of criminals and is a continuous underlying presence. In contrast to persons who correctly assess the seriousness and probability of a threat that produces fear, “the fear of criminals,” according to Sander, “seems more a product of their inner generated brain data, thoughts or signals, without contact or reduced contact with the outside world.” Criminals deny their fearfulness and try to convince others that they are fearless; despite their efforts, they cannot eradicate fear. The fear is radical and present already at an early age in the criminal child. The presence of fear emerges so early that it seems to be independent of experience. Further, the criminal kind of fear is said to last life-long.

Anger in criminals is described in a similar way by Sander. He quotes Yochelson and Samenow:

Anger, though pervasive in the criminal, is not always shown. The criminal is chronically angry—even as he walks down the street. Anger is a mental state that is sometimes expressed outwardly, but more often boils within. It is most dangerous when it is not on the surface. Anger is as basic to his personality as the iris is to the eye.

Sander comments that, “We shall in the criminal see a durable or lasting anger during walking. This too may support the suggestion that anger in the criminal does not stem from outer circumstances.” Anger, in this view, stems from inner states rather than being a reaction to external events.

The pervasive and persistent nature of fear and anger in the criminal mind obstructs the processing of information from the outside world. It is, says Sander, as if “a criminal is living in a state of a closed channel” and is unresponsive to the influence of other persons.

The pervasive and persistent nature of fear and anger in the criminal mind obstructs the processing of information from the outside world. It is, says Sander, as if “a criminal is living in a state of a closed channel” and is unresponsive to the influence of other persons. Similarly, a criminal is not deterred from pursuing crime by fear of being caught or punished, because his repetitive inner theater wears down the power of the deterrents by “corrosion.” Just as the criminal endlessly mentally rehearses his contemplated crime, he also discounts the chance that he will fail. This perception leads the criminal to hyperoptimism about his ability to commit a crime without being caught and to disregard external information about risk of apprehension. Finally, criminals are prone to lie, even when the truth is apparent and others are not deceived. The criminal brazenly lies because to do so is habitual and automatic, even though the criminal is fully aware of his lies.

Although Judge Sander does not provide concrete examples of criminal thinking, his practical judicial experience is probably replete with such cases. In my own limited experience of interviewing chronic criminal offenders, I find much to confirm the accuracy of Sander’s analysis. For example, I once was asked to evaluate a murderer after his conviction so I could testify at the penalty phase of his trial. This young man of 28 had been convicted of brutally murdering a woman for whom he was doing repair work. His family was stunned at the conviction, because the young man was ordinarily docile, polite, and submissive, yet when he drank alcohol and smoked marijuana, he flew into murderous rages. I learned that he was, in fact, a serial killer and had murdered several women without getting caught. When I conducted extensive interviews with him, he at first denied that he had committed the murder, even though he had easily been convicted. When I asked him about the multiple murders, he again lied. I attempted to explore his anger toward women. His response was that he was not angry at all, despite the objective evidence. After much probing, I learned (and confirmed) that he had been forcibly sexually molested by his mother when he was a young child, but no one in his family knew about it. Yet it became clear to me that his fear of molestation and exploitation converted into murderous rage when his inhibitions were relaxed. He had obsessed for years about revenge for the molestation, while outwardly appearing to be a “nice, polite boy.” His first criminal offense occurred when he raped the mother of his first girlfriend, after which the mother felt sorry for him and drove him home. After this first crime, his diminished fear of being caught and his hyperoptimism fueled his repeated murders, until he finally committed a crime so blatant that it was inevitable he would be caught. But this criminal was living in his own delusional world; he lacked fear of detection, he denied his murderous rage, he ignored external deterrents, he falsely believed he could get away with serial murders, and he blatantly lied about his crimes. He was sentenced to capital punishment and was executed.

On another occasion, I evaluated several pedophiles. It is clear to me that these men experience persistent fear and anger in the manner described by Sander. They attempt to overcome their fear of being rejected by exploiting children through bribery and manipulation. These offenders often have little insight into their underlying anger about their own lack of importance, so they try to compensate by dominating others who are vulnerable, but they have little regard for the harm they cause. Pedophiles typically get away with their crime for years before they are caught, so they overcome their fear of being caught and become hyperoptimistic. They even convince themselves that they are not really causing harm, because they are showing their love and concern for the children, and they obsessively fantasize about their crimes to diminish the deterrent effects of social disapproval. Even after they are caught, they lie about their offenses and insist that they have been wrongly convicted. It is, as Sander points out, much harder for them to face and tell the truth. Thus, the subjective characteristics of the criminal mind described by Sander certainly seem to be confirmed in my experience.

Some interesting shit to read, hell get busted blame it on your predisposed criminal genetics.


  • 4206942069 Regular
    edited July 2010
    racism is presuppositions of genetics, so there is either a loophole for profiling, or a classification of race, based on genetics, physical and mental

    example: Racially speaking, I'm physically white, but mentally a nigger
  • ILTST9ILTST9 Regular
    edited July 2010
    I'm no criminal. I'm just morally challenged.
  • muffinsmuffins Regular
    edited July 2010
    ILTST9 wrote: »
    I'm no criminal. I'm just morally challenged.

  • grayboygrayboy Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    As a kid, criminals tend to suppoprt the bad guy in cartoons and movies, on account of all his hard work.
  • edited July 2010
    This article is bullshit. How broad of a term, "criminal." That could be anything from a shoplifter to a murder. Being a criminal is just a picture painted by society of what is wrong or punishable and what isn't. Crime is usually committed for one of these reasons, Adrenalin, materials, or passion.
  • PacoPaco me administrator
    edited July 2010
    I'm not a criminal, my stealing is influenced by a real mental disorder. :mad:
  • CatchMeIfYouCanCatchMeIfYouCan Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    I'm an advocate of illegalism and that article is too broad.

    After much probing
    Yeah, this is the same shit that psychiatrists to with "pedophilia victims"; poke and poke until they feel like shit and a victim (even if thesex was consensual), get some kind of reaction that they can pin point and make a big issue out of whatever they want. Psychiatrists aren't there to help anyone, they just make people feel more like shit and worthless.

    I'd be likely to be a psychiatrists wet dream if ever I went into one and told them everything I believe in; they'd probably lock me up.

    The only thing I can put "criminals" mindset down to is sticking with their natural (often tribal) survival instincts.

    ^ and for those reasons.

    I wrote an article on football hooliganism which could tie in with this thread.

    The difference between this article and the majority of other articles is that this article is going to be “pro-hooliganism” and explain the natural instincts ingrained in football hooliganism and why it is a positive course of life.

    First of all, before we even start, we must take a look at what football hooliganism actually is.

    Football hooliganism is unruly and destructive behaviour —such as brawls, vandalism and intimidation—by association football club fans.[1] Fights between supporters of rival teams may take place before or after football matches at pre-arranged locations away from stadiums, in order to avoid arrests by the police, or they can erupt spontaneously at the stadium or in the surrounding streets. Football hooliganism ranges from shouts and fistfights to riots in which firms clash with bats, bottles, rocks, knives or guns[citation needed].[2]

    Taking a look at the above description you can see that it is very vague in description, “unruly behaviour” how and exactly who has the right to accurately define “unruly behaviour”. As said it can range from shouts and fistfights AND THEN to riots. Then take a look at the sources; [1] "Another sorry outbreak of the English disease". London: The Independent. 2004-06-17. Retrieved 2007-07-25.

    [2] ^ "German Hooligans Make Mark in Bratislava | World Cup 2006 | Deutsche Welle | 05.09.2005".,2144,1701053,00.html. Retrieved 2010-03-24.

    The “English Disease” is emotive language used to play on the heartstrings of the masses and play on their mind. The name itself is bullshit, football hooliganism is not “the English disease” as football hooliganism happens worldwide and much more ruthlessly, notably in countries like Brazil, always has and it still is today.

    Basically “football hooliganism” is whatever the media wants it to be, to illicit and invoke negative reactions by calling it “hooliganism”, a supposed socially unacceptable activity, which is quite the contrary and what I will be covering in a minute. Football hooliganism has no specific legal definition. It is a term, which was created by the media, way back from when it first became popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

    Two very specific 'types' of disorder that have been labelled 'hooliganism': (a) Spontaneous and usually low level disorder caused by fans at or around football matches (the type that typically occurs at England away matches), and (b) Deliberate and intentional violence involving organised gangs (or 'firms') who attach themselves to football clubs and fight firms from other clubs, sometimes a long way in time and space from a match.

    We all know how the media uses keywords, expressions and imagery to influence your thoughts and opinions, however.

    It is no different when it comes to reporting on “football hooliganism”. The reporting relies on emotively worded headlines grounded in violent imagery and war metaphors whilst articles are regularly edited for impact. Made for the masses to fear and look down on these actions and to call for “more police action”, “government action” and for the locking up of these thugs, because they are cowards who feel unsafe and would not be able to defend themselves. They are meek, the puke of society; the hypocritical domesticated sheep.

    I myself was a part of and still have ties to our local team’s firm, I have done since the age of late 15, and was routinely involved in it by the age of 16. You were with your friends always, you never ran or left your friends behind, but you always made sure to avoid the police. It was always about having a laugh, being the better men, 1 upping the other firms, making an impact and belonging. This is normal and natural between every life form.

    Bacteria fights bacteria, germs with germs, tigers struggle with tigers, animals with other animals, and man fights man.

    Robert Audrey wrote the great trilogy: African Genesis, Territorial Imperative, and The Evolution of Social Contract. He put it this way: "Men are motivated by three things: 1) Stimulation, 2) Identity and 3) Security..."

    “Football hooliganism” appeals to all 3 of these. It has been said by us hooligans ourselves, former and current and many psychologists who have studied hooliganism, that it is like a battlefield and warfare. I agree with this, it is.

    Man takes an instinctive delight in all that pertains to warfare and the chase.
    As children we fire our slingshots ate owls just as children of the earlier years fired their arrows, we practice and repeatedly load or toy guns, marshal our toy soldiers, draw our wooden swords, build our snow fortifications on the play ground; and the proudest day of our lives is that on which he becomes the proprietor of a real gun or gets into a real fight.

    Men and women cannot be completely castrated by his natural instincts, despite the greatest efforts on going by the media, churches, or education _ the government.

    The reason that our jails, prisons and mental hospitals are full is due to the unnatural society and laws they try to force us to live by. The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, we are ALL subject to the laws of nature, not man.

    It is survival of the fittest amongst us all. No moral dogma must be taken without questioning. They were created and bundled upon us by humans, and what man has made, man can destroy.

    Neither morals, laws, nor creeds are First Principles, but they have their use for the casting off of lower organisms (the controlled masses), for extirpating individuals of low self-determination and inability to think and fight for themselves and their family and their people. Indeed the secret object of all superstitions possibly is, to provide an ultra-rational sanction for fraudulent standards of Right and Wrong.

    Each individual should think as they please, without the least respect for what others think or do, only being limited to his actions by the materialized opposition he actually meets with; for the strong are the natural limit of the Strong. No one has hooks in their ass to stop them from their natural instincts or to obey any authority figure (or a majority); except the authoritarian can force obedience. We owe no allegiance whatever to authority figures; and we should be ever ready (when the time is right) to overwhelm and destroy their dictation, as self-preservation is the first law of nature and freedom is harmonious with this.
    A wonderful video.
  • CatchMeIfYouCanCatchMeIfYouCan Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    If one accepts these “bullshit” bundled “morals” that is their funeral. If they are eager to handicap themselves or commit suicide I am not going to stop them. That is their own business, just as it is mine to be self-determined and live life according to the natural law and purpose of survival and propagation and my own way, and have FUN.

    A sensible man should never conform to any rule or custom simply because it has been highly commended by others, alive or dead. If they are alive he should suspect their motives. If dead they are out of Court. He should be a law unto himself in all things.

    The further man gets away from Nature, the further he departs from right. To be right is to be natural. Naturally man is a very savage animal, as can be evidenced throughout history.

    Our anatomy, external and internal; eyes, teeth, muscles, blood, brain and vertebra; all speak of fighting, passion, aggressiveness, violence, and prideful egoism.

    Even the component elements of a human body are themselves in a constant state of internecine warfare. Our bony framework and pulsating tissues are vast campaigning grounds; whereon microscopical animalculæ in countless myriads, fights out their ephemeral lives, as we ourselves do. When one swarm of microbes, germs, or spores conquer (in the struggle for sustenance) disease, or death supervenes to us, as the case may be. When rival hosts vanquish, then our flesh, nerves, bones, and blood become their happy hunting grounds, and our health returns — at least until the bacilli-battalions have finally eaten us out; or they have been, themselves, conquered and exterminated by fiercer swarms.

    Animals roar at midnight in their territory and in battle as the piratical Anglo-Teuton roars his “BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC” his “BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES,” or his “WATCH BY THE RHINE.” Exactly as the Moslem fanatic yells “Allah Akbar” while slicing up hated ‘Christian dogs’ so the vicious Englishman thunders forth his “Hip, Hip, Hurrah!” while driving an elegant bayonet-dagger into the liver of ‘wicked heathens,’ whose property he then takes as his own territory.

    Just as us “hooligans” belt out our chants.

    As already explained a feeling of community, tribalism and sheer enjoyment of being involved in hooliganism is obviously in evidence, especially for those of us in a firm.

    Naturally we as humans are very tribal animals;

    Man never has and never should be domesticated to the nature of a sheep. He is the fiercest, most ferocious, most cunning, and most bloodthirsty of all the vertebrates, as can be evidenced by the history of man with anthropophagy and cannibalism.

    Structurally, men are fashioned for purposes of inflicting and suffering pain. Every human anatomy is an elaborate nerve and bone infernal machine. Men rush upon their prey with shouts and bloodshot eyes, as predators of the deserts, sea and jungles do. Man banquets upon his quarry with greediness, snarling, and growling with ferocious triumphant delight, just like wolves.

    Tribalism, patriotism and race are naturally inseparable. The Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Celts, Huguenots, Flemings are from common origins all contributing to the achievements and culture of Great Britain. We have our differences but in the end we still fight together.

    No nation, nor has any race ever been enslaved, because it took part in manly sports - in the hunting of boars and lions, and men - in deadly tournaments - in dueling - in prize fighting - in gladiatorial combats — in scenes of ‘cruelty and blood.’ Not a single nation. But dozens of ‘civilizations’ have perished shamefully, because of the spreading of cowardice and suppression gendered by effeminacy, luxury, usury, laboriousness, statecraft, superstition, and peace.

    We “hooligans” may not be articulate philosophers, but we are something much greater, we are MEN. Women instinctively admire soldiers, athletes, kings, nobles, and fighting-men generally, above all others. Nothing turns a woman off more than a man to get his ass kicked by another man. Among all classes of females this sentiment persists. The best bid a man can make for the admiration of any women is a display of undaunted physical prowess.

    Energy-of-character, ruthlessness and balls are what a woman wants; they hate cowards who are afraid to grab the bull by the horns and mope around. Women love to be dominated, wooed and "won".

    Most guys aren't brazen enough to stand up and be a man and will get walked over by all sorts of people of society.

    Second-class males are driven by necessity to mate with second-class females; and in strict sequence third class-males select partners from the ones left over.

    The top class men take the best women.

    It's sexual selection in action.

    With social animals, the young males have to pass through many a contest, before they win a female, and the older males have to retain their females by renewed battles. They have also, as in the case of mankind, to defend their females, as well as their young, from enemies of all kinds, and to hunt for their joint subsistence.
    - Charles Darwin; Descent Of Man- pg 564

    With this I can conclude that “football hooligans” are much more desirable and of a natural breed of society than your pussy whipped upper rich class and the conditioned masses who allow themselves to be domesticated. “Hooliganism” is all about having a laugh.

    Football hooliganism
    is a widespread and problematic phenomenon inWestern Europe, causing an ‘appalling toll
    of deaths, injuries and damage to property’ (Russell, 2004, p. 354). Moreover, the
    deployment of police forces in order to prevent and control riots represents a major societal
    cost (e.g. Van Limbergen, Colaers, & Walgrave, 1989).
    - Football Hooliganism: Comparing Self-Awareness
    and Social Identity Theory Explanations
    Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Now let us go back to wikipedia’s page on football hooliganism.

    Early history
    The first instance of football violence is unknown, as many football games have been played around the world for years, but football and violence can be arbitrarily traced back to at least the Middle Ages in England. In 1314, Edward II banned football (which then was a violent free-for-all involving rival villages fly-hacking a pig's bladder across the local heath) because he believed the disorder surrounding matches might lead to social unrest or even treason.[5]

    The part bolded hits home as the most truthful reason for the demonising of football hooliganism, it hasn’t changed much in accordance with the before quote. It’s all because it costs the state money and rebels against it.

    Spirit of rebellion & revolution is the old time classic quality of all men back many years ago and still holds true today. Just mindlessly going along with the crowd and doing whatever the authorities want you to do is when dictation comes along. I’m sad to see that the hooliganism has been curbed and has quietened down. Society is becoming much more controlled, governed and softened out of fear of being locked up.

    Football hooliganism in essence is rebellion against the norms, staying in touch with your natural instincts and channelling those instincts. They are on the right track, in terms of nature. The government and police fear these types of people, and have turned the mass society into hating our kind and turning us into the authorities (sometime sin exchange for a cash “reward”) in order to have complete control in their hands.

    Be free, be happy, be fit and REBEL!

    Further reading:

    · Armstrong, G. (1998) Football Hooligans: Knowing the Score. Oxford: Berg .
    · Armstrong, G and Hobbs, D, 'Tackled from Behind', in Giulianotti, R, Bonney, N, and Hepworth, M, (eds.), Football, Violence and Social Identity, 1994, London: Routledge
    · Buford, B, 'Among the Thugs', 1991, Mandarin
    · Hall, S, 'The Treatment of 'Football Hooligans' in the Press', in Ingham et al., (1978) Football Hooliganism: The Wider Context, London: Inter-Action Inprint
    · James, M, and Pearson, G, (2006) ‘Football Banning Orders in the Courts’ Journal of Criminal Law, December
    · Pearson, G, (1998) 'The English Disease? The Socio-Legal Construction of Football Hooliganism', Youth and Policy: The Journal of Critical Analysis No. 60, Summer: 1-15
    · _______, (1999) 'Legitimate Targets? The Civil Liberties of Football Fans', Journal of Civil Liberties, Vol. 4/1, 28-47
    · _______, (2000) 'Legislating for the Football Hooligan', in Greenfield, S (ed.), Sport and the Law, Frank Cass Publishing.
    · _______, (2005) ' Qualifying for Europe? The Legitimacy of Football Banning Orders 'On Complaint' under the Principle of Proportionality’ Entertainment and Sports Law Journal , Vol. 3 No. 1
    · _______, (2006) 'Contextualising the Football Disorder Act: Proportionality under the Hammer' in Readings in Law and Popular Culture, Eds. Greenfield, .S and Osborn, G.
    · Stott, C, (2003) 'Police Expectations and the Control of English Soccer Fans at Euro2000', Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Managemen, 26: 640-655
    · Stott, C and Pearson, G, (2006) ‘Football Banning Orders, Proportionality and Public Order’: Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 45, No. 3, July 2006: 241-254
    · Stott, C and Pearson, G. (2007) 'Football Hooliganism: Policing and the War on the English Disease,' London: Pennant Books
    · Sugden, J, (2003) 'Scum Airways: Inside Football's Underground Economy', Mainstream
    · Ward, C, (1989) 'Steaming In: Journal of a Football Fan': Pocket Books
  • PacoPaco me administrator
    edited July 2010
    Awesome Read, Thanks CatchMe.
  • CatchMeIfYouCanCatchMeIfYouCan Acolyte
    edited July 2010

    A wonderful video and the description is good too.
    In the UK, a new "Counter Terrorism Act" came into force on 16th February 2009. It contains an amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This amendment will make it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about any police constable "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

    Furthermore, Schedule 7 of the Bill applies this amendment to internet service providers and web hosting services. This means they will have a legal duty to remove all sites perceived to fall under this offence, and has provisions for use at home and abroad.

    It is unclear what information will be classed as useful to terrorists, but due to this ambiguous wording, the Bill has implications for bloggers, journalists, photographers, activists and anyone who values freedom of speech.

    We must show that we won't be intimidated, or called terrorists for resisting or monitoring repressive policing.

    Fitwatch are one of the groups who could be targeted by this new legislation. Fitwatch, started two years ago by activists, resists and opposes the use of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) on demonstrations. FIT are police officers who photograph, follow, and generally intimidate protesters. They bring, in the words of Jacqui Smith, harassment style policing to protests.

    As part of this opposition, Fitwatch run a blog where they share information about these officers. We feel this blog could be under threat from this new legislation.

    Whilst Fitwatch may not like officers who act outside of the law, they are certainly not terrorists.

    Neither are:

    * people filming, and uploading to Youtube, footage of police officers acting illegally.

    * bloggers writing about being randomly stopped and searched.

    * journalists publishing details of corrupt or racist cops.

    * photographers publishing photographs of police on protests.

    The list goes on, but all are under threat.

    This legislation not only attempts to stifle our ability to hold the police force to account for their actions, but also attacks the principles of open publishing on the internet. It must be resisted.

    Please join the mass action and oppose this ludicrous law.

    I fucking hate cops, of any race, including white- they're traitors, as are the cops of every other race to theirs. I love it when a big crowd of football hooligans stand tall together with their camera phones out recording and chanting out :D

    Harry Roberts is our friend, is our friend, is our friend. Harry Roberts is our friend, he kills coppers. Let him out to kill some more, kill some more, kill some more, let him out to kill some more, Harry Roberts
  • Buffalo FawksBuffalo Fawks New Arrival
    edited July 2010
    These studies are unsound. What is a 'criminal'? Different cultures have different morals, rules, and laws. Laws are implemented by man (all men are created equal) and who's to say breaking these man made laws is considered wrong in the first place? Just because one acts immorally doesn't set them aside as a different class than everyone else, and it certainly doesn't mean all criminals have a different brain pattern than law abiding citizens. It also really depends on the definition of criminal used. If criminal is defined as 'one who acts immorally and breaks a given law while also maintaining a social disorder' then I can see this being feasible. Otherwise it cannot be true, Sanders is neglecting the fact that when you push a wild animal into a corner -despite how easy going and normal- that animal will attack becasue of the pressure he is under. Humans are the same way. Take a man who is forced to steal bread for his family. He is now a 'criminal' but he's not truly a criminal. A woman, forced into prostitution by a pimp, she may not necessarily be corrupt minded.

    Then again, certainly many criminals do have social disorders and as a result of these personality and social disorders they end up living a life or crime.
    For example, sociopaths. Psychopathy is a personality disorder where one has a lack of empathy and understanding. Obviously this person is more inclined to rape, steal, and murder.. he cannot possibly understand that what he has done is wrong. But Sanders does not say specifically he is referring to criminals with disorders, he says criminals in general. This article is too generic, one cannot state
    Criminals deny their fearfulness and try to convince others that they are fearless;
    The criminal is chronically angry
    because it is simple not true. Lets be honest, I will admit im a criminal, most of you are criminals but that doesn't mean we automatically have some brain functioning problem.
    We must firstly know what defines a criminal to understand this pathetic attempt of a study.

    If he was talking about a specific type of criminal such as a pedophile, then i can understand the logic. Pedophiles were often molested as children or belittled and for that reason they feel the need to either comfort more children (in a twisted way) or empower themselves by abusing children because of how defenseless they are.
    Take an arsonist. Arsonists are very similar to rapists. This is because both are a grasp of power. Most rapists dont actually commit their crime for sexual pleasure, it is ultimately to feel empowered. The same goes for arson.. the feeling of lighting something on fire and watching it be destroyed makes one feel as if they can control things.

    The fact of the matter is all criminals are not alike and you cannot generalize all criminals' brains because they simply are not alike.

    Judge Sander does not provide concrete examples of criminal thinking
    ..Enough said.
  • CatchMeIfYouCanCatchMeIfYouCan Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    (all men are created equal)
    That's the biggest lie ever told, biologically and otherwise.
  • PacoPaco me administrator
    edited July 2010
    That's the biggest lie ever told, biologically and otherwise.

    Seeing as we dont have a :thumbsup: this should do.
  • Buffalo FawksBuffalo Fawks New Arrival
    edited July 2010
    That's the biggest lie ever told, biologically and otherwise.

    Well I guess we could say the declaration of independence is a lie
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

    But on a more literal note, all human beings are created the exact same way with the exact same materials. No man is better than another right from the start.
    Lets not get to logistical and bring disorders and biological discussion into this.
    So, all men are created equal.
  • grayboygrayboy Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    Well I guess we could say the declaration of independence is a lie

    Yes, you can, what a bunch of Americans thought a while back has no influence on my life.

    Erm...."Gawd bless da USA!!!!!!!"
  • CatchMeIfYouCanCatchMeIfYouCan Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    No man is better than another right from the start.
    But they are.
    So, all men are created equal.

    But they're not.

    Exactly what greyboy said. Want me to elaborate?
Sign In or Register to comment.