Who is the murderer in these cases?

[Avicenna]

These sound like WWII, especially "A harrasses [Hitler]. [Hitler] gets mad. [Hitler] commits genocide on group C.

[Rodion Romanovich]

These sound like WWII, especially "A harrasses [Hitler]. [Hitler] gets mad. [Hitler] commits genocide on group C.

That's interesting, maybe deserves a new thread. After all, if you consider Hitler a murderer, even though he didn't kill a single person by his own hands and barely even ordered others to kill - he rather only "adviced" others to kill, then you have admitted that in some situations indirectly causing the death of others would be a crime. In that case, it would be a contradiction not to admit that Alois Hitler, the father of Adolf Hitler, was just as responsible - or even more responsible, than Adolf Hitler himself. Alois Hitler deliberately choose to beat his son since infanthood (yes, not since he was like 5 or so, which usually makes the children end up in mental hospital, suicide or serious crime, but since infanthood, when he had barely gotten out of his mother's womb), and Adolf Hitler's mother didn't do a thing to help, weak and cowardly as all wives of child abusers are. No, I'd blame Alois Hitler and Adolf Hitler's deputies (Himmler, Eichmann etc.) for what was done in that period. Blaming Adolf Hitler above these others is a cliché, he's blamed just because he was the frontal figure, the man who made the speeches. However I understand that those who say "I hate Hitler" probably really mean "I hate what was done during that period, and those who were responsible for it".

My view is probably that if you had free will and could choose between causing evil stuff or not, and chose to cause it, you are evil, while those without free will aren't as much to blame. Adolf Hitler obviously didn't have much free will after such a painful childhood - having been beaten as a child I know that it's damn difficult to have any kind of free will in your actions at all in such a situation - I'm still fighting to get control over myself and only succeeded 5 years ago, with traces of my past still left (it'll never go away completely). The most horrible thing about being beaten when you're a child isn't the pain, but the fear. Not the fear of being hurt, but the fear of having no rights at all, having nobody who supports you. Knowing that theoretically the oppressor could do anything he wanted, even kill you, if it would please him. Then, only teasing from that person is enough to give you panic. Teasing, telling you exactly that, that no matter what you do everybody will stand on your enemy's side. And there are several other factors that make it even worse: when you see the people who have beaten and harassed you have great success in society, while you sink lower and lower, being refused everywhere, you really start thinking it's true that anybody can do anything they want to you. And you want to give that pain to others, the only thing that can make you feel strong for a while is to be able to put others in such a powerless situation, and watch their fear. By becoming what you fear you can get rid of the pain and fear. And there's also the constant refusation that follows upon being harassed and beaten. You might think that because you've been beaten and harassed as a child, things will suddenly turn the opposite way, and you'd get a compensation for the bad start - some sort of half religious belief. But in reality it's the other way around - the bad start makes you too weak, and this weakness puts you at a disadvantage for the rest of your life, in your every undertaking. Women fear you, because your facial expression is full of fear and hatred, and employers won't give you work because they see the taught but not deserved shame in your eyes, and fascistically consider you weak even though you probably have more motivation than others because your anger makes you want to prove the society you're good, and makes you work hard when you feel that you have a chance. And then there is a third fear, which grips you. The fear that people will look at you, see your pain and fear, and that they believe you have less control over yourself than you do, so that they consider you dangerous, and want to kill, inprison or weaken you further because of it. A man in that situation, broken down as he is, might turn to women, to get some sort of appreciation. He might turn to women to hear them say "those men are mean, I don't like mean men, I'll treat you well because I pity you, and would like to help you, because you deserve it, and I know you have a much greater potential". Love novels and other traditional lies after all hammer in that message into your sorry little brain. But women aren't like that. And when you realize that the myth called love (your last hope) doesn't exist - that nobody likes you because you are you, and women are attracted to oppressive men like those who beat you, then what is left of your life? Could you possibly lose any more than that? Yes, you could, actually. When people start calling you mad or evil, giving you feelings of guilt as if you had been the one carrying out the deeds of harassment. When you are already treated as an evil person, what is the purpose of remaining good? Nothing! The only reason to remain good is for avoiding being attacked.

No, I certainly hope people correct this mistake of calling a beaten, harassed man who made hateful speeches without knowing what he did a massmurderer, and instead burn pictures of Alois Hitler (maybe also his passive bystanding wife - after all if you get a child you've taken a responsibility so even if you don't consider neutrals and bystanders guilty of a crime, this is an exception because by getting a child you've caused the scenario in which the crime will appear, and it's your duty to stop it), and deputies like Himmler, Eichmann and all the others, who truly deserve it. And blame society structure, for rewarding the oppressors. Hating Adolf Hitler is like hating an exploding nuclear power plant as if it was a person, because none of them had any free will. Instead hate the man who made a shitty safety system for the nuclear power plant, and the workers who added to that abused the safety mechanisms.

Just my two cents. Will probably be taken as very offensive and/or controversial by some, but nonetheless I can't stand hearing this cliché over and over again, often also from people who carelessly carry out harassing, beating, bullying and deprival of persons' free will - people like Alois Hitler who was truly more guilty than Adolf Hitler. If you think this post was offensive and/or controversial, please respond and tell me why. This is a really important subject to me and if I won't be able to convince others that it is possible to deprive another person of his free will, even in extreme cases, I at least want to try and understand the people who disagree. I truly don't know anymore - did I become degraded to useless because somebody arbitrarily happened to choose to start harassing and beating me and I lost most of my free will? Can I be worth something now that I have gotten back my free will, or will I always remain hated and despised because I was once hated and despised for no reason at all? I think this is the most serious problem there is in society, and law. The real criminals seldom or never get sentenced, while human tools without free will take their punishments for them. I guess nobody else has the guts to say this truth aloud - Oscar Wilde and others were punished for it. Probably I will get punished and hated for saying it. In society it's a crime to have been punished for not being guilty, and you're punished for it for the rest of your life.

[Faust|]

Well gl to you, first. Second I would say that free will is probably not always present for some people. Third I would say that this reinforces my belief that people who go through extraordinary and extreme adversity should not be leaders in any capacity and should not be given any power beyond that of a typical citizen/member of society.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Third I would say that this reinforces my belief that people who go through extraordinary and extreme adversity should not be leaders in any capacity.

I agree, but there are also cases where people can improve, and their insight given by their experiences could be valuable to making political decisions - but in that case a post as invisible political advisor behind the scenes would be more appropriate, probably. Anyway, it's exactly your kind of thoughts that make it worse for the abused people! I'm not angry at you for it or anything like that because I understand it - it's a valid thought. It's very difficult indeed to tell when a person has the potential to get out of the dangerous state. So you can choose between two scenarios: giving a madman power or making a person who was fairly near a sane state ravingly mad when he wasn't. And occasionally this person who is fairly near a sane state is made ravingly mad because he wasn't trusted, and then somehow still manages to get power - that's when you get a really dangerous scenario.

To your three points I'd like to add that fourthly: society must solve the problem of being able to be harsher against harassment of different kinds through law. The alternative is no law, or anarchism. In anarchy, a hateful oppressed person could easily kill his oppressor without fear of being punished, thus eliminate the root of his fear, and wouldn't need to hurt anybody innocent to still it. Also - everybody would think twice about harassing somebody aribtrarily because nobody has any power to do so without having to fear for the rest of his life to get killed when he least expects it. And excuses and communication to avoid misunderstandings where it seems there was an attack when there wasn't one, would be important. And if against all odds some unprovoked harasser would kill somebody immediately instead of systematically harassing them, then the poor victim would die faster, suffer less, and be unable to hurt others - not an ideal situation but the harasser is still punished because he (assuming life is lived in flocks like among monkeys) weakens the numbers of his flock and thus undermines their entire survivability - something that would make it benefitial for the entire flock to kill him quickly, especially if he's planning more than one murder. The one problem with anarchy is that from anarchy, the worse state of laws and power structures, with individuals having less power and freedom, is always reborn, often initially with laws worse than those in a civilization that has lasted longer. So either anarchy must solve the problem of laws and power structures rising, or law must solve the problem of harassment not being punishable or judgeable even in the best legal systems. How?