river-wind
Valued Senior Member
are you sure about that?
Where do you think it comes from?
Is it some psychic connection to those around you?
Is it simply a keen sense of human emotions and the human condition and recognizing the acute details of body language, words, voices etc.?
I have been very empathetic since I was a child.
Beyond the point of being affected by other's emotions.
To the point that I am completely controlled by the emotions and thoughts of the people surrounding me (physically or otherwise).
I have an immediate sense about people (and it is very rarely wrong).
I have fine tuned this by studying human behavior and body language. People watching.
I think it has a lot to do with my anti-social behavior, and desire to be alone so ofetn.
It is the only way I can really experience my OWN emotions.
What are your thoughts on it?
Yep, im guilty of being very empathic also, i wont eat meat or even kill insects anymore!
Emotions are an incredibly powerful aspect of ourselves, i actually think emotional thought can be better understood as a way of visceral thinking. I think people should be taught and trained to develop emotional thinking ever bit as much as logic and reasoning.
Some people would gain an awful lot from lessons in empathic thinking.
If you learn to harness them they can be your biggest strength!Emotions are our biggest weakness.
True, but i think youre talking about a small minority, even a high number of people with autism/aspergers/bpd's are able to empathise.Emotions cannot be taught. People are born with an emotional spectrum, it's decided and determined by genetics, by the time the baby is born, it already has it's emotional spectrum. This means if its ever going ot feel empathy, it's going to feel it within the first few years of life, and if it does not feel it then, it's never going to develop it.
I think you misunderstand me, im not talking about training sociopaths to care, im talking about training people who have problems (not a complete inability) conceptualising someone elses circumstances/feelings to conceptualise better.What emotional people fail to understand is that not everyone has the same emotions as them. Not everyone can feel empathy. So when you talk about training and teaching and all that crap, it does not work that way. You cannot teach a person to feel something, they either have the instinct or they don't, trying to act like you can teach it is like trying to teach a homosexual to go straight, you cannot.
Agreed, but youre talking about the absolute extreme end of the spectrum - outright sociopaths with a genetic predisposition to complete self-absorbtion, im not.So instead, emotional people need to figure out how to shut off or adapt to the world in a way which allows them to deal with people who are of the exact opposite emotional spectrum as them. If you have empathy, you need to learn to deal with people who have no empathy. If you love, you need to learn to deal with people who hate.
Empathy is not universal, some people will have no remorse for you, ever, no empathy, ever, and no love, ever. Accept it and adapt.
If you learn to harness them they can be your biggest strength!
True, but i think youre talking about a small minority, even a high number of people with autism/aspergers/bpd's are able to empathise.
Its actually pretty rare to not feel any empathy whatsoever, but youre right if theres nothing there initially of course theres nothing to develop. But with most people there is.
I think you misunderstand me, im not talking about training sociopaths to care, im talking about training people who have problems (not a complete inability) conceptualising someone elses circumstances/feelings to conceptualise better.
Case in point, im genetically predisposed to be absolutely terrible at mathematics, i mean really terrible, no natural flair for it atall.
But by working on it at school i was able to excersise that part of my mind so that i wasnt actually half bad at it.
There are probably even people on this forum with severe dyslexia who you wouldnt even guess they had it, simply because they worked at developing their writting.
Our mental handicaps/inabilities can provably be developed to a much higher functional level through proper training.
Agreed, but youre talking about the absolute extreme end of the spectrum - outright sociopaths with a genetic predisposition to complete self-absorbtion, im not.
I dont think you can ever genuinely guage the strength of love/hate as opposing emotions, id personally try to steer clear of making such statements.Hate and fear are stronger than love. Emotions are not a strength for humanity even if you think it's a strength for individuals.
Where are you getting these figures from?How many people do you know, who you have personally seen empathy from?
In prison populations, 20% show no remorse and no empathy. I admit thats not the majority, but thats 20%, it's a lot of people.
Woahhh there, youre making really broad blanket statements that have no real basis in fact. You cant say all rapists/murderers have no empathy or unable to show empathy, because well, it isnt true.Not as rare as you think. Like I said, it's about 20%. Rapists show no empathy, or remorse because they have none. Murderers, at least the kind of murderers who aren't doing it in self defense, also have none.
Ive never known any person to be completely devoid of emotion to be quite honest, ive known people whove shown barely any empathy, but they still could be empathic in certain situations.And there are plenty of business men who don't care about you at all and have no empathy for you, or anyone poor. You can make the case that the majority of people feel empathy, but you also have to admit that many people you know, don't feel empathy, in fact you likely have family members who don't, friends who don't, and work with people who don't.
I think youre looking at empathy as a feeling which is entirely detached from the rest of our psyche, this really isnt the case. If empathy as a feeling can neurologically occur within a person (and we've established it is very rare that it cannot) then what we're really looking at is ways in which that emotion can potentially be triggered.I don't know what empathy problems you are talking about. People either have it or they don't.
If they have it, they don't need your education, they'll learn from experiences. If they treat you without empathy, try treating them without empathy, thats how they'll learn. Experience.
Well i wouldnt say theyre instincts, i useally think of self-survival/procreation as instincts but yes i know what you mean, one needs to be able to feel it in the first place in order to do anything with it.Math is an instinct, empathy is an instinct, but math skills are a skill, and display of empathy is a skill. You can become better at the display and application of empathy but it still requires you to have the instinct to feel it. So what you are talking about is training people to apply empathy more often and to follow their instincts.
Im not sure i really understand what you mean here to be honest, im not trying to abstractly give empathy to anyone. I just think emotions can be ignored so that they lie stagnant and of no beneficial use, or they can be developed so as to create a more well-rounded humanbeing.The problem is, empathy is not something everyone will understand if you decide to give it to the world, and secondly, not everyone will respect or care how you feel towards them or others. So the display becomes more of an acting game, whats the point?
Thats a good point actually, there are obviously constructive and non-constructive ways for appreciating empathy as an emotion.There is a difference between mental handicaps, and the inability to display and communicate emotions. You can feel empathy and simply not be good at displaying it, I'm like that myself, and yes you can learn to display it.
Not really, im talking about acknowledging the emotion and working on the conceptual triggers, as i said constructive action based on the emotion is more important than being able to show the emotion to others.What you don't want to be confused about is the actual teaching of empathy. Empathy is an instinct, you arent talking about strengthening the feeling itself, you are talking about strengthening the active display of it, you are talking about
Yes of course you cannot be empathic to somone who (for instance) has a gun to your head, that would obviously be counter-productive.People learn to ignore their empathy as a survival mechanism. You cannot afford to share empathy with everyone. In the end, empathy is just an emotion like all the others, the world does not care about how you feel towards it, and unless people actually care about you, they will not care what you are feeling unless it's for selfish reasons.
People do self-sacrifice from time to time sometimes at the cost of their own lives, so clearly we can make virtually any emotion/drive the primary motivator if we so wish.It's not a handicap. Actually most men feel empathy but do not display it very well. This is just how men are trained to be, and a reaction to a harsh environment. Do you expect a soldier on a battle field to stop to feel empathy or feel whats going on? Of course not. Of course you cannot expect a common man to trust his instincts when there is so much risk involved. In the end, even if a lot of men feel empathy, critical decisions are not made based on empathy or instincts, critical decisions are made based on success or failure, and based on results and consequences. You might feel like saving someones life, but if your life is too important and you don't want to risk your life to do it, you still did the right thing because the main concern any human has is to protect themselves, empathy and all other emotions come second to that instinct.
Well again, emotions arnt instincts theyre how we judge our external and internal landscape. Emotions cannot be trusted 100% though no, neither can logic and reason, your non-emotional logic is ever bit as likely to get you into trouble and lead you down the wrong path as emotions are. Both parts of our psyche are inherently falible, no getting away from it.I never called you a psychopath or sociopath. I'm saying some people follow their emotions and some don't. It's not simply a matter of if you feel empathy or not, it's also, do you trust your emotions or not?
I'd say a lot of people have lost the ability to trust their emotions. Instincts are not to be trusted. Trust your brain first and your heart second, thats how it works.
Sure you can, just look at history, what emotions actually mobilized people? Fear? Hatred? sure, but people who love, what do they do? Once again, I'm saying rely on history as a guide, don't be such a hippie.I dont think you can ever genuinely guage the strength of love/hate as opposing emotions, id personally try to steer clear of making such statements.
Stop being a clueless hippie.Where are you getting these figures from?
Woahhh there, youre making really broad blanket statements that have no real basis in fact. You cant say all rapists/murderers have no empathy or unable to show empathy, because well, it isnt true.
Ive never known any person to be completely devoid of emotion to be quite honest, ive known people whove shown barely any empathy, but they still could be empathic in certain situations.
The thing is there are different degrees of empathy and compassion, you simply cant label a businessman who gets rich off the backs of poverty and misery as having no empathy.
As its quite likely he will have loved ones who he cares very much about and would be devastated if anything bad happened to them.
I think you really have to be aware of how someone inter-relates towards a wide range of people in various instances to really get an accurate picture of where theyre at empathically.
I think youre looking at empathy as a feeling which is entirely detached from the rest of our psyche, this really isnt the case. If empathy as a feeling can neurologically occur within a person (and we've established it is very rare that it cannot) then what we're really looking at is ways in which that emotion can potentially be triggered.
Empathy is useally triggered by the ability to conceptualise or artificially place your self into someone elses experience.
Its this that some people either simply forget to do, dont allow themselves the time to do, or have problems achieving.
I really cant see any reason why the conceptualisation of another's situation couldnt be worked apon and developed such as virtually any other aspect of ourselves can.
Well i wouldnt say theyre instincts, i useally think of self-survival/procreation as instincts but yes i know what you mean, one needs to be able to feel it in the first place in order to do anything with it.
Im not sure i really understand what you mean here to be honest, im not trying to abstractly give empathy to anyone. I just think emotions can be ignored so that they lie stagnant and of no beneficial use, or they can be developed so as to create a more well-rounded humanbeing.
Thats a good point actually, there are obviously constructive and non-constructive ways for appreciating empathy as an emotion.
Simply showing empathy isnt really of any use to anyone, but rather using it as a driving force to create change for the better is.
Not really, im talking about acknowledging the emotion and working on the conceptual triggers, as i said constructive action based on the emotion is more important than being able to show the emotion to others.
Yes of course you cannot be empathic to somone who (for instance) has a gun to your head, that would obviously be counter-productive.
Im not suggesting we all feel empathy 24/7, just as i wouldnt suggest we feel any other emotion all the time.
As for people only ever acting for selfish reasons, that is clearly untrue. I could list thousands of things that people do and have done for others at the expense of themselves.
People do self-sacrifice from time to time sometimes at the cost of their own lives, so clearly we can make virtually any emotion/drive the primary motivator if we so wish.
Well again, emotions arnt instincts theyre how we judge our external and internal landscape.
Emotions cannot be trusted 100% though no, neither can logic and reason, your non-emotional logic is ever bit as likely to get you into trouble and lead you down the wrong path as emotions are.
Both parts of our psyche are inherently falible, no getting away from it.
I also dont think youre anyway near mature enough or familiar with psychology in general to understand that people can act with a complete lack of empathy (rape, murder) and also act altruistically at another given time or even express genuine sorrow at past misdeeds.
To argue otherwise is to condem people as either 'good' or 'evil' and to throw away hundereds of years of progress in the fields of psychology/philosophy.
It may suprise you to know that a local man to where i live was recently charged with the rape of a young girl, and shortly before sentencing rescued a couple of small infants from a burning building at the risk of his own life.
I find it staggering that you cant understand that human beings are highly complex creatures capable of various forms of behaviours which arnt always consistant.
To argue otherwise is to condem people as either 'good' or 'evil' and to throw away hundereds of years of progress in the fields of psychology/philosophy.
Try telling any psychologist (even a student) that rapists and murderers cannot feel compassion or empathy and i can garantee they will laugh in your face. People compartmentalise their moral selves and create moral-loop holes which make it ok to commit terrible acts.
It doesnt mean they dont have empathy, more offen than not theyve simply placed a block on any compassionate feelings in relation to specific situations.
Its how soldiers are able to kill on the battlefield but dont as civilians, its how racists rationalise killing blackpeople
but wouldnt dream of harming a air on the head on a white person,
its how you love your pet and wouldnt dream of hurting it but will quite happily sit down and eat a small mammal not that different from the one you are so affectionate about.
Its really really basic human psychology, i really recommend you buy a book sometime to full get to grips with these aspects of the human psyche.
Ive also explained about 3 times that i am not suggesting that people without empathy
(sociopaths) can magically be taught to be emphatic. But you are still atempting to argue with me as if i am.
I really not entirely sure if youre playing dumb for some kind of comedic effect, but either way im not going to spend all day re-explaining very simple things over and over again. Only for you to misunderstand and carry on arguing against a position that i do not even hold.
I got the impression early on that you were way out of your depth, its probably my fault for atempting to converse with you on terms that are obviously far beyond your grasp.
Of course empathy shuts on and off, you honestly believe youPeople are judged by their past misdeeds, not the silly words that come out of their mouth. If a person has raped in the past, no matter what words they say, I'm still going to believe they will rape in the future. I don't think empathy is the type of thing that shuts on and off, if it does, then it isnt real empathy.
If you believe rapists/murderers who express remorse at thier past actions are all faking it (which i imagine amounts to litterally millions of people) then youre going to have to prove it. Or are you going to simply ad hom everytime i ask you to back up your claims?You look in prison, you have guys there who are doing life, many of them are honest about it, they don't feel remorse and they proudly say so. Then you have others who try to fake empathy, even when they are just as guilty.
Its well documented by proffesional psychologists/psychiatrists that people whove commited terrible acts can infact feel genuine remorse and sorrow for their crimes. So what youve just said has no basis in fact other than an unprovable unqualified opinion.Just because they say they arent guilty, and feel sorry for what they did, it does not mean everyone is going to be a complete sucker and fall for it. Someone can torture your daughter and then say they are sorry, they didnt mean it?! If they did it, they meant it. People are what they do. Rapists rape people, and no I do not think rape is the kind of crime that can be reformed.
Then youre dealing with caricatures and not humanbeings im afraid. The problem with viewing people as good and evil is people are never going to absolutely conform to those extremes.Exactly, I view people as good and evil. I discriminate, so what? You have to judge character somehow.
Its a possiblity yes, but to believe this is the only reason he did it and to discount all others i think is simply a means for you to contiue believing that people are either good/evil.This does not mean he could feel empathy. Maybe he believed he was going to hell and did it for selfish reasons, like to save his soul, or to look good in public. Empathy is not the same as doing good deeds. People with no empathy do good deeds, I never said they were not capable of good deeds. I said being capable of feeling empathy, means that they will not be able to commit the act in the first place, because THEY WILL feel empathy in the process of commiting the act. How exactly do you torture someone who is crying, screaming, begging for their life, a child in fact, and expect anyone to believe you have empathy? Prisoners don't like child molestors, and there is a reason for it, it's because even in prison it is known that this sort of criminal displays no empathy.
No you still dont get it and im starting to get the impression youIt does not change the fact that certain kinds of actions and crimes, show a complete lack of empathy. If you can rape someone, or torture someone, you have no empathy. Sure you can rescue someone later on, or save a life later on, but empathy is what keeps people from raping and torturing others for pleasure. A person can be capable of remorse but not capable of empathy, you are confusing remorse with empathy. Doing a good deed right after doing a bad deed is an act of remorse, but doing the bad deed means a lack of empathy.
They only show a lack of empathy towards a specific situation, thats the whole point ive been trying to explain. In the same way that if i show insensitivity to someone in a situation, that doesnt mean that im INCAPABLE of being sensitive.So? There is a good and evil. It's based on how a person treats others. If you do evil shit all the time, then yes you are evil, it's really that simple. You can try to blur the lines between good and evil all you want, but if someone were to rape you, or your daughter, or your mother, or someone you care about, you'd see them as evil, period. You'd throw all your philosophy and psychology out the window and see them as a monster, and of course if they treat you like a monster, why wouldnt you see them that way? Is it unnatural to see reality?
What? ive not even stated any of my views on reform and punishment, i could be wrong but i really think youve got some deep personal issues that relate strongly to this topic and its apparent when you make wild statements like that.Stop making excuses and admit that you are soft on crime, and soft on criminals. There is no moral confusion.
If someone commits rape then it means they had no empathy or they had some kind of mental block on any empathic emotions, or they have been raised to believe it is ok to do such things.If you know rape is wrong, if you can see the person crying and begging you to stop, but you continue, you are simply unable to feel empathy. I cannot think of a better situation where someones empathy would be triggered, how exactly can someone commit rape by accident? Tell me how this could ever happen and then I'll believe rapists can feel empathy, because rape is the sorta crime which I don't think can happen by accident.
the Holocaust made this perfectly clear - and this is something that many of us have been strenuously trying to forget ever since - is that evil is not the sole responsibility of a few 'bad apples.' Bad as Hitler was, he would never have been able to do what he did without the passive cooperation or active participation of vast numbers of ordinary Germans who, left to their own devices, would probably never have become accessories to murder. So how did the Nazis manage to turn an entire country into sociopathic serial killers?
Milgram thought he had found one answer: about sixty percent of the time, human beings will obey the voice of authority over the dictates of their own consciences, even when they are not given any material incentive for doing so. The Stanford prison experiment suggests that the trouble goes even deeper than that - that individual identity, itself, is tremendously fragile; that most of the time, the institution is stronger than the individual. For all the talk in American culture about rugged individualism, Zimbardo found that identity was something that his subjects could be persuaded pretty easily to abandon - in order to survive, in order to escape punishment, or simply in order to escape disapproval.
So now youre at least partially accepting that people with empathy can commit terrible acts, at last.Also if a person does have empathy, and they do rape, they usually commit suicide or turn themselves in, they don't deny it or claim not guilty, then get convicted and proven guilty.
No the point was people create specific situations in which they make it morally ok for themselves to commit a terrible act.Anyone can kill in self defense. Soldiers kill because they are on a battlefield where everyone is trying to kill them. They kill out of fear of being killed. This is not the same as why people rape. Rapists arent in danger of being killed if they don't rape and torture the victim. People kill out of fear. I don't know what racism has to do with this subject. I don't think racism is rational, it's religious in nature, so it's different, but as far as I know there is no religion that teaches that we must rape people. There might be religions which commit ritual suicide, or murder, and the reasons why black people or any people are hated, are emotionally driven (hate, fear), and religious in nature, not rational. It's only rational if that same person dislikes all people equally, then it's rational.
You consistantly manage to completely miss the point each time, brining race and religion into doesnt make my argument weak atall.Unless the white person is a black person? How do you know this? Are you saying you'd trust Charles Manson not to harm you because he is white and his religion says he shouldnt? If someone can brutally murder one person, they can brutally murder any person, it's rational to treat all people as human period. If you want to try to bring religion into it (race), to defend your arguement, I think it's a weak arguement. I don't view the world in race, I view it in good and evil. If someone acts evil, thats what they are, and it's based on how they treat others, this means other humans, animals, etc.
I havent even expressed any views on punishment/reform! so how can you even begin to critique my opinion on it, and where on earth did you get the idea that i treat everyone the same? Youre making things up as you go along.I see you are just soft on crime, you are consistant on this. You also believe in religious dogma to the point where you cannot seperate good from evil, so anyone can do anything to you and you'll treat them the same. This is the flaw in your worldview, anyone can do anything to you, or anyone around you, and you'll treat them the same. How exactly do you judge character if you have these soft views?
It doesnt really matter what you believe on the issue personally, the point is people will eat meat (a lack of compassion) but also paradoxically treat animals with care and love.To me theres no difference. If you eat meat, you should be prepared to kill what you are eating. If you aren't, perhaps you should change your diet.
I agree, i dont eat meat for the same reasons. But remember back to when you did eat meat, were you a person without empathy of compassion?I stopped eating red meat because of empathy. I thought about it, I'm not the sorta person who would enjoy hunting mammals. So it's simple, if you feel bad about killing mammals, change your eating habits, because guess what, that cow you are eating, had to suffer, and their suffering is NO DIFFERENT from your pets. Their pain is NO DIFFERENT.
EARTH TO TIMETRAVELER: people do good things and bad things, open your door sometime and take a look at the human race if psychology isnt enough to convince you.Sociopaths feel no empathy or remorse. I don't care if you are a sociopath or not. It's not about psychological classification, or terms. It's about how you treat people. If you treat people in an evil way, people will view you as evil, it's that simple.
If you treat people in a good way, people will view you as good.
Of course it matters what i say, since my views falls consistantly inline with modern psychology and current scientific thought.The world should and must judge people by their actions towards other people, the environment, and themselves. People will discriminate, and judge character, so it's not going to matter what you say, or what we call you or label you, if you go and rape someone, or if you like torturing animals, all the years of philosophy and psychology get thrown out the window, and you become evil.
No i wouldnt because im grown up enough to realise that human beings arnt that simple.I don't understand your position. How are you going to judge character if you have no concept of good and evil? Of course you do. There are types of treatment, that if someone did it to you, you'd instantly see them as evil,
Wtf are you talking about 'soft on crime' when did i ever say i was soft on crime? what are you talking about, seriously?you can try and say theres no good and evil all you want, but your actions and your responses will show. Like I said, if someone raped someone you cared about, would you still be this soft on crime, or would you finally admit that the rapist is evil for commiting the act of rape? If the rapist goes to court, says they are sorry, and cries in public is it really going to change your mind after they commited that act?
haha, ok. 1-0 to the coppers then?I know about sociopaths, psychopaths, bipolars, narcissists, and any other psychological type. What you psychologists don't seem to understand is, it doesnt matter what type a person is. What matters is how they are living. You can be a sociopath or psychopath and still know not to commit rape. You can also have a concept of good and evil, and know right from wrong. Psychology does not prevent crime, the police do.
Yes but that doesnt mean he is a monster with horns who is devoid of anything except pure evil. Thats completely irrational.You can research psychology, you can read as many books as you want, but when someone is trying to rob, rape, or harm you, it's not going to matter anymore what psychological term you apply to them, that entity becomes a monster in your mind, that entity becomes evil based on the act it is commiting against you. Evil is based on actions, not psychology.
Noones justifying them! to understand doesnt mean to justify it just means you have a better idea of their motives and actions.Rape is an act of evil. Torture is an act of evil. There is no way to justify these actions, because they serve no rational purpose whatsoever. To try to justify them, as many academic psychologists attempt to do, is to attept to justify evil.
Evil doesnt exist, its just a quasi-religious concept, noone takes it remotely seriously anymore man.Instead of focusing on how to justify it, or on how to understand it, why not just focus on recognizing it when you see it. If you cannot recognize evil when you see it, you won't even be able to respond.
Look, if you want to call people either good or evil, if you want to simplify life down to those abstract terms to make the complex reality easier to deal with, fine. But your definitions do not aid our understanding of why people act the way they do, and are of no use whatsoever in a progressive society.If you can just think of one rational reason why someone would need to rape another person then you can change my mind, but until you can, it's an evil act, and people who commit evil acts are evil.
You are what you do.
They are overridden, but this is not the same as shutting off. Fear overrides love, but it does not shut the emotion off completely, it just is so much stronger that you instinctively respond to it. Fight or flight.Of course empathy shuts on and off, you honestly believe you
can experience an emotion 24/7? you cant.
All emotions shut on and off, they cant be continually experienced.
If you believe rapists/murderers who express remorse at thier past actions are all faking it (which i imagine amounts to litterally millions of people) then youre going to have to prove it. Or are you going to simply ad hom everytime i ask you to back up your claims?
Its well documented by proffesional psychologists/psychiatrists that people whove commited terrible acts can infact feel genuine remorse and sorrow for their crimes. So what youve just said has no basis in fact other than an unprovable unqualified opinion.
Then youre dealing with caricatures and not humanbeings im afraid. The problem with viewing people as good and evil is people are never going to absolutely conform to those extremes.
Just as people dont conform to being either dumb or smart. Even if we find someone who is extremely intelligent (lets say hawkins) we can still probably find more than a few stupid things he has done in both his personal life and proffesional carrer.
Thats how real life works, people arnt cartoons.
Its a possiblity yes, but to believe this is the only reason he did it and to discount all others i think is simply a means for you to contiue believing that people are either good/evil.
No you still dont get it and im starting to get the impression you
never will, seriously read some books on psychology, especially one
on criminial psychology.
You wil soon find that in no way shape or form is it accepted that commiting a crime makes one devoid of genuine emotion. You will soon realise that this is something that *you* simply choose to believe. I cant think of one proffesional working in the field of mental health would would agree for a second with your ascertions.
They only show a lack of empathy towards a specific situation, thats the whole point ive been trying to explain. In the same way that if i show insensitivity to someone in a situation, that doesnt mean that im INCAPABLE of being sensitive.
Just that i couldnt in that specific situation.
What? ive not even stated any of my views on reform and punishment, i could be wrong but i really think youve got some deep personal issues that relate strongly to this topic and its apparent when you make wild statements like that.
If someone commits rape then it means they had no empathy or they had some kind of mental block on any empathic emotions, or they have been raised to believe it is ok to do such things.
Rape is statistically far far more common in war-torn areas and destablised reigions, does that mean theres more sociopaths in those areas with a neurological inability to empathise?
No that would be far too much of a coincidence. The reason is when a society isnt stable there arnt social norms to hold things together, so you get people who essentially should have no mental problems with feeling compassion for another humanbeing behaving incredibly discompassionately.
Infact heres a quote in regards to the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments (those names are actually worth googling in themselves by the way) that might make things abit clearer for you...
So now youre at least partially accepting that people with empathy can commit terrible acts, at last.
No the point was people create specific situations in which they make it morally ok for themselves to commit a terrible act.
How else do you think people who excecute inmates on deathrow, then go home to their husbands and wifes aftewards and kiss their kids goodnight beofre bed?
Im sorry but people who kill and rape are not by definition sociopaths 'end of story' only a tiny percentage are useally sociopaths.
Again, this is accepted throughout the entire field of psychology, so youre not even arguing with me anymore youre arguing with an entire discipline/paradigm.
You consistantly manage to completely miss the point each time, brining race and religion into doesnt make my argument weak atall.
Google 'suicide bomber pathology' and you'll see what im talking about.
I havent even expressed any views on punishment/reform! so how can you even begin to critique my opinion on it, and where on earth did you get the idea that i treat everyone the same? Youre making things up as you go along.
It doesnt really matter what you believe on the issue personally, the point is people will eat meat (a lack of compassion) but also paradoxically treat animals with care and love.
People can encompass both states of altruism and selfishness, get a grip and just accept it.
I agree, i dont eat meat for the same reasons. But remember back to when you did eat meat, were you a person without empathy of compassion?
No im sure like me you were more than capable of being emphatic, you just placed a mental block on your ability to empathise with animals...'animals are different they dont count, theyre not as smart as us, im still a good person even if i continue to eat them.'
This is the exact same process by which all people commit crimes/terrible acts.
I really dont see why you cannot get to grips with this, you obviously ate meat at one point in time (which you now believe is morally wrong) does that mean you would condem yourself as an evil person because you commited immoral acts at one stage of your life?
No i doubt you would, you can probably accept that it simply means youre a complex human being who is neither good nor bad, but rather something inbetween.
Why cant you accept the same about other people?
EARTH TO TIMETRAVELER: people do good things and bad things, open your door sometime and take a look at the human race if psychology isnt enough to convince you.
Of course it matters what i say, since my views falls consistantly inline with modern psychology and current scientific thought.
People stopped seeing people as good or evil hundereds of years ago, society has moved on, we've realised theres all kind of shades of grey inbetween and we have experiments to verifiably prove it.
No i wouldnt because im grown up enough to realise that human beings arnt that simple.
Yes but that doesnt mean he is a monster with horns who is devoid of anything except pure evil. Thats completely irrational.
Noones justifying them! to understand doesnt mean to justify it just means you have a better idea of their motives and actions.
If you really want to reduce understanding in regards to the human psyche to 'people are good or evil. end of story!'
Then prehaps you should move to the congo? or the middle east?
I cant think of anywhere else in the world where those sorts of views would be taken seriously.
Evil doesnt exist, its just a quasi-religious concept, noone takes it remotely seriously anymore man.
Look, if you want to call people either good or evil, if you want to simplify life down to those abstract terms to make the complex reality easier to deal with, fine. But your definitions do not aid our understanding of why people act the way they do, and are of no use whatsoever in a progressive society.
You seem to erroneously believe that to understand is to let criminals off the hook and absolve people of wrong-doing. You completely misunderstand the whole point of disecting the human psyche, its so we can PREVENT these things from occuring.
Your good/evil dichotomy has no practical use in preventing crime or immoral acts, as to PREVENT we need to understand the reasons behind peoples actions.
Your beliefs in good/evil ultimately have no preventative qualities, mine do, therefore your entire position can be guaged as having less practical value to society.
It would also seem that the western judicial system/mental health services/social sciences would agree.
Let me try and put this another way so maybe you can understand, if i preform of act of extreme piety and goodwill - lets say i give all my money to a crippled child so they can get better, also for the sake of argument lets assume i have the childs best interests at heart i have no selfish ulterior motives.If he is selfish and evil enough to rape, he is selfish and evil enough to lie about it, is he not? He is not the sorta person who shows much empathy commiting the crime, so why believe what he shows after the crime is commited? There is good and evil, if someone is doing harm to the community, to themselves, or to you, they are evil. It's that simple.
You dont have to care about rapists or murders to comprehend the fact that they may in fact be capable of emotions other than hate/lust/greed/evil. Thats the critical flaw in your reasoning, you believe to understand the psychology of someone you dislike means you have to love them and let them off the hook. It doesnt and i really dont know where youve gotten the idea that is does.Doesnt matter. If someone commits the wrong act, no one will believe them or care about their emotions anymore. If they could rape someone and not care about the emotions of the victim, why should they expect the general public to care how they feel?
You can be altruistic and greedy according to different situations and your moods, i wont debate this with you since it is an observable fact.If they can show lack of empathy in one situation they can show it in all situations. It's not situational emotion anymore than greed is. A greedy person is always greedy, not usually just greedy with money in a specific situation. Greed is a form of selfishness, it's not simply a bad habit, it's an urge, an emotion, an instinct.
Yes of course people should always be made to take responsibility for their actions!Judge people and not situations. Personal responsiblity. People must be responsible for what they do, not simply allowed to blame it completely on the situation. Yes the situation you take into account, to see what options they might have had, but if a person chooses an evil option when they had many more good options, the person is to be blamed, not the situation, as is the case in rape.
Well people do rape, come out of prison and never rape again. So it seems reform is possible with a percentage of offenders, otherwise all rapists would repeat offend without question, which clearly isnt the case.I don't believe all crimes are reformable. I don't believe rapists can be reformed. Thats what makes them "evil".
This is another critical flaw in your reasoning, understanding why someone commits a crime doesnt equate to - making excuses for them. Do you believe thats what criminal psychologists do all day? sit around all day making excuses for criminals and repeat offenders?Stop making excuses for evil actions. Personal responsibility!
Again this is something i laid out in black and white already on more than a couple of occasions. Please dont argue against a position i dont even hold, it comes across like youre not even bothering to read what ive written.Compassion is not taught. The expression of it is taught, not the feeling of it. You feel it or you don't, it cannot be taught anymore than greed can.
Nope! they dont, if you want to continue that like of illogical reasoning either find A. one person on this forum who agrees with that position orHowever people who feel greedy, ALWAYS act that way, because it's natural for them to.
Bingo, its environment that offen plays a central role in our compassion or lack thereof, rather than inherent 'goodness' or 'evilness'.There have been experiments where groups of students were made into prisoners and guards. In these situations yes people can display less empathy, but this is due to the environment.
Women are sub-human, they dont deserve the same rights as men, theyve been put here by God to fuffil our needs as men and should yield to your needs when we demand it.Certain acts are easier to justify in the mind than others. I don't see how anyone can justify rape.
If you can realise that those switches also (figuritively speaking) exist in the human mind as well, then you'll begin to see how we can set all kind of loop-holes and conditions whereby we dont have to acknowledge guilt or feel bad about x y and z.I'm sure people do feel guilt commiting that act. This is why they don't know they commited it. There are 3 switches, each person flicks their switch, only one kills the prisoner on death row, and they never really know which one. This allows them to psychologically handle killing a human.
Labeling people as good or evil with no kind of acknowledgement of anything in between is about the worst way to protect/secure a community i can think of.It's not about punishment or reform for me. It's about protecting myself from them. It's about protecting the community.
But thats what you still dont get, half of the time thats all evil really IS, hypocracy and irrationality.These are irrational people. I'm not saying I'm 100% rational all the time, but lets admit that these people are being irrational hypocrites.
And alot of the evil you percieve in the world works on the exact same basis; ignorance.Now, I'm not saying all people who eat meat, hate animals, most people don't know how these animals are killed, I still don't know all the details myself. I can say that if most people did know, and had to watch the animals get slaughtered before their meal, they wouldn't be able to eat the meal.
Ah but dont forget that some people hunt for their food, and have no problem shooting an animal in the head and gutting it.It's the fact that they don't see it, that they don't think about it. This is not the same as with rape where you see the victim being tortured.
The Harvard psychologist Martha Stout estimates that psychopaths make up four percent of the population.Just because you ignore the extremes to focus on the mediocres, it does not mean the extremes do not exist. You focus too much on the mediocres to recognize good or evil.
Says who? i mean you do realise that morality is entirely subjective right? i could quite easily suggest that by eating meat youre commiting an act every bit as bad as rape, infact worse - youre allowing life to be taken and youre getting fat off the process.No, I was not without compassion. The problem was never "eating" meat. The problem is how animals are treated when they are slaughtered. If you don't really know much about how the food system works and how screwed up it is, you don't have any motivation to change your habits, but if you know how messed up it is, you'll change. It's not that I don't eat any meat at all, I just don't eat certain meats, based on how these animals are treated. This is a situation where most people don't have enough information to know right from wrong, it's not the same as rape.
Ah come on now, most people rationally know that at some point in the equation an animal has been killed for that meat to have arrived on the supermarket shelves. They can ignore the fact that animals are being killed and mistreated and hide it from themselves but deep down they know.Thats not it either. It's more that when it's all set up to the point where you don't even have to think about it, it's just brought to you, if people basically give you meat, or cook it for you even, its more difficult to not accept it. If you had to hunt it yourself, then you'd likely not eat meat because you'd know what it means to eat meat, but if you just were to go to a store and buy it, you'd have no clue. Most people have no clue. I still don't know everything, but the more I learn the more disgusting meat becomes.
Understand does not = to excuse.This makes sense for children, but adults should take personal responsibility. I will not make any excuses for an adult that commits rape. They know it's wrong. The information is out there, they know.
lol, you do know murder and rape are natural too? all mammals kill and rape its entirely natural. Im afraid that argument doesnt really stand up as a way of advocating meat-eating, since you are against other natural forms of animal behaviour (rape, etc).I don't think eating meat is evil or unnatural. Humans are supposed to eat meat. It's the WAY we do it that is unnatural.
Yeah but you eat free-range, so sadly to me youre still evil, sorry.I don't like the thought of meat factories killing and slaughtering on a massive scale, feeding cows cow parts, and hormones, it's a torturing way to do it. It's not the fact that it's done, it's how we are doing it.
Youre not good even by your own standards, there was a point at which you must have eaten meat produced via the industrialised process, with knowledge of all the implications.I'm good. Evil is when a person knows something is wrong morally, and knows it's harmful, but simply does it anyway. So if a person were to have the option to eat meat that was hormone free, and treated properly, and slaughtered in a humane way, but still choose to torture the animal or have it tortured before consuming it, thats evil, because there is no rational purpose beyond pleasure.
Someone who tortures is much more likely to be a sociopath yes, although we've already seen that environment and circumstance can turn the average joe next door into a homocidal maniac with relative ease as well.We were talking about good and evil, not good and bad. Evil are things which there is no rational explaination for. Example, is torture. Why torture anyone or anything? Why? You can eat meat if you want to, but do you have to torture the animals?
No you just see them as a threat, you dont have to see them as evil atall, althoug dehumanisation the threat does help.Actually no, people havent. This is the mode every person goes back to when attacked. If you get attacked, if someone breaks into your house and has a weapon, they are automatically an evil person and you will kill them just as quick as any other evil entity, like a poison spider, or a wild dog, they will be seen as a threat and you'll either fight them or run from them, but in your mind you'll see them as evil at that moment. This is basic psychology, it's fight or flight.
How about just judge people via their actions while taking into account all the variables that lead upto their actions?You make them simple enough to deal with. If you don't, then how will you make any decision at all on people? Do you treat them all as evil? some people do this. Others seperate them into good and evil. What do you do to judge people?
Only via your limited perception of that person in that fragment of time, your limited experience of that person doesnt define the person, his inter-relation with *all* the people hes ever come into contact with does.At that moment hes acting like a monster, so hes a monster. That's rational. People are how they act. Thats their true self.
I dont think you really know the difference between good and evil yourself, i think you may have trouble understanding that they are actually highly subjective concepts.Understanding is fine, but don't understand to the point where you cannot judge character anymore, or know the difference between good and evil. If you can't tell the difference between good and evil, how do you know anyone? You have to see people for what they truly are, based on how they are.
Well ive never labeled anyone as good or evil ever, i think humans are more dynamic than that, so you will simply have to accept that not everyone sees the world in accordance with your terms.In the end, when you have to make a judgement call on a person, you'll make them either good or evil. You want it more simple? It will be Yes or No. 1 or 0.
Friend or Not.
I can judge character well enough to comprehend that my limited experience of a person doesnt equate to the full reality of who that person is.You do realize that not everyone in this world is your friend, or even capable of being your friend? If you cannot judge character enough to see who will make a good friend and who will make a bad friend because you have no concept of good or bad, then how can you consider anyone to be a friend if you don't know their true nature?
Yes, but can you see that hardly anyone conforms to these polar opposite values? and why those terms are practically useless?Evil, defined by their actions. If someone is destructive, and they only commit destructive acts, they are evil. While most people you know are mediocre, meaning not really fully good or evil, the extremes definately exist. You have people who are saint like, and you have people who are devilish, and it's all based on their nature, and how they act. If someone dreams and plans on destroying the earth, do you consider this person good or evil? Yeah you can rationalize it and say "well what if I want the earth to be destroyed? Then they are good!", but it does not work this way. They are good or evil based on the harm they do to EVERYONE else, the total sum of their destructiveness decides how evil they are. If they destroy everything they touch, they are evil. If they heal everything they touch, they are good. Can you see the difference here?
Ah ok, all im saying is your forms of discrimination by their very nature are overly simplistic - you only have TWO definitions (good/evil) so the whole range of human behaviour has to be somehow lumped into those two catagories, not exactly a good way to go about defining anything id say, human behaviour or anything else for that matter.Beliefs in good and evil are personal. I'm not advocating that everyone adopt the same beliefs. I'm saying I believe in it, it's my way to discriminate.
Ok i'll give you one example out of hundereds: schizophrenics, if you were in charage of the world someone with schizoprenia would simply be evil, and we would not be permitted to describe or understand them beyond your two word definitions of good/evil.Show me that it works. When the mental health and social services, and when psychologists and psychiatrists actually prevent crimes then I'll take it seriously.
So humanity is doomed and we should just give up on ourselves?I don't see any changes in the destructive energy of man. In fact I see destructive energy on the increase. Man is destroying man, every day, while you study it and come up with new words for old problems. This has been going on since before psychology existed, and just because you have new words for good and evil, it does not change the fact that these things were discussed in every bible, of every religion, in simple plain language that anyone without a Phd or college degree can understand.
Let me try and put this another way so maybe you can understand, if i preform of act of extreme piety and goodwill - lets say i give all my money to a crippled child so they can get better, also for the sake of argument lets assume i have the childs best interests at heart i have no selfish ulterior motives.
Does that one action mean im a good person for the rest of my life, even if i suddenly decide to turn into the most ruthless/uncaring bastard the world has ever seen?
Do you see now how absurd it is now to label people on the basis of one action and disregard all others?
You dont have to care about rapists or murders to comprehend the fact that they may in fact be capable of emotions other than hate/lust/greed/evil. Thats the critical flaw in your reasoning, you believe to understand the psychology of someone you dislike means you have to love them and let them off the hook. It doesnt and i really dont know where youve gotten the idea that is does.
You can be altruistic and greedy according to different situations and your moods,
i wont debate this with you since it is an observable fact.
Behaving altruistically doesnt mean youre always going to behave altruistically and behaving greedily doesnt mean you will always behave greedily.
This isnt up for debate it is an observable fact and accepted by proffesionals. If you still cant accept this test your belief against what other people believe. Prehaps start a thread asking if anyone as you do, believes that by displaying greed in a single instance this makes you a greedy person incapable of altrusim.
I think the best way to test your ideas is to see how they tally up with everyone elses, if the vast majority (over 90%) are in disagreement with its probably time to accept that you may be wrong about humanbeings.
Well people do rape, come out of prison and never rape again. So it seems reform is possible with a percentage of offenders, otherwise all rapists would repeat offend without question, which clearly isnt the case.
I guess you could argue the threat of punishment (especially having been to prison) might be playing a part in their behaviour though, rather than their conscience.
This is another critical flaw in your reasoning, understanding why someone commits a crime doesnt equate to - making excuses for them. Do you believe thats what criminal psychologists do all day? sit around all day making excuses for criminals and repeat offenders?
Again this is something i laid out in black and white already on more than a couple of occasions. Please dont argue against a position i dont even hold, it comes across like youre not even bothering to read what ive written.
Nope! they dont, if you want to continue that like of illogical reasoning either find A. one person on this forum who agrees with that position or
B. a proffesional psychologist who agrees with that position, and i will take you seriously. Because as it stands it appears that its only you holds this opinion.
Without appearing rude, do you have autism? as ive never come across a normal functioning person who has such a problem understanding the complexity of human behaviour. Its as if you need to paint everything as either black or white for the world to appear less chaotic and scary.
Bingo, its environment that offen plays a central role in our compassion or lack thereof, rather than inherent 'goodness' or 'evilness'.
Women are sub-human, they dont deserve the same rights as men, theyve been put here by God to fuffil our needs as men and should yield to your needs when we demand it.
Its easy see?
If you can realise that those switches also (figuritively speaking) exist in the human mind as well, then you'll begin to see how we can set all kind of loop-holes and conditions whereby we dont have to acknowledge guilt or feel bad about x y and z.
The way to protect a community, is to protect the community from people.Labeling people as good or evil with no kind of acknowledgement of anything in between is about the worst way to protect/secure a community i can think of.
If you refuse to understand why people act the way people do and clutch to stereotypes instead how are things ever going to improve?
At least with my views i have an understanding of the situations and circumstances that can arrise to make people act out in anger. If i understand what situations can bring about those actions in people then i have a much better chance of preventing them.
Its called 'sociology', another great tool we have for both understanding and creating a better society for everyone.
But thats what you still dont get, half of the time thats all evil really IS, hypocracy and irrationality.
And alot of the evil you percieve in the world works on the exact same basis; ignorance.
Ah but dont forget that some people hunt for their food, and have no problem shooting an animal in the head and gutting it.
Does that make those evil people? or does it mean theyre affording themselves a specific situation in which their use'all everyday morality does not apply?
You see people compartmentalise the various aspects of themselves, the person who kills a deer but wouldnt dream of killing a human will never see the contradiction and hypocracy because they dont allow themselves to see it. Its not evil at work man, its the ability of the human mind to play hide and seek with itself.
Much in the same way that a suicide bomber wont allow themselves to see that a killing an 'evil westerner' isnt really any different from killing an arab
Or we could just call them evil instead, and not try to understand what makes them tick to make life easier, although certainly *not* safer.
The Harvard psychologist Martha Stout estimates that psychopaths make up four percent of the population.
I think its infact you that has the unhealthy obsession to focus on the extreme end of the behavioural spectrum without focusing on the fact that most people fall somewhere inbetween.
Says who? i mean you do realise that morality is entirely subjective right?
i could quite easily suggest that by eating meat youre commiting an act every bit as bad as rape, infact worse - youre allowing life to be taken and youre getting fat off the process.
How about i label you as evil? seeing as evil can only ever be defined subjectively theres not alot stopping me.
But do you think im wise in polarizing you in this fashion?
Ah come on now, most people rationally know that at some point in the equation an animal has been killed for that meat to have arrived on the supermarket shelves. They can ignore the fact that animals are being killed and mistreated and hide it from themselves but deep down they know.
Does this make them discompassionate? nope, it just means theyre ignoring their own compassion to make life easier, big big difference.
If you could realise that this is the way in which most evil actually occurs then i think youd understand life and people a hell of alot better.
Most evil is not the actions of a manic sociopath devoid of love taking exactly what he wants, most evil that you percieve is your average everyday person that you pass in the street.
You think the Nazis were all-out psychos? think again. The vast majority were normal compassionate people thrown into an alien situation in which they ended up carrying out unspeakable acts.
Understand does not = to excuse.
lol, you do know murder and rape are natural too? all mammals kill and rape its entirely natural. Im afraid that argument doesnt really stand up as a way of advocating meat-eating, since you are against other natural forms of animal behaviour (rape, etc).
Yeah but you eat free-range, so sadly to me youre still evil, sorry.
Youre not good even by your own standards, there was a point at which you must have eaten meat produced via the industrialised process, with knowledge of all the implications.
Or did you stop the *very instant* you found out how meat arrived at your table?
The same moral argument youre playing against other people can just as easily be played against you according to the same standards, thats all im illustrating. Morality isnt just what you decide it is.
Someone who tortures is much more likely to be a sociopath yes, although we've already seen that environment and circumstance can turn the average joe next door into a homocidal maniac with relative ease as well.
No you just see them as a threat, you dont have to see them as evil atall, althoug dehumanisation the threat does help.
How about just judge people via their actions while taking into account all the variables that lead upto their actions?
What good are your labels of good and evil? seriously.
Only via your limited perception of that person in that fragment of time, your limited experience of that person doesnt define the person, his inter-relation with *all* the people hes ever come into contact with does.
I dont think you really know the difference between good and evil yourself, i think you may have trouble understanding that they are actually highly subjective concepts.
Well ive never labeled anyone as good or evil ever, i think humans are more dynamic than that, so you will simply have to accept that not everyone sees the world in accordance with your terms.
I can judge character well enough to comprehend that my limited experience of a person doesnt equate to the full reality of who that person is.
If someone fucks me over i wont be their friend, but that doesnt mean i have to turn them into some evil boogey-man character in my head to rationalise what i experience.
I really think thats a pretty immature approach to life.
Yes, but can you see that hardly anyone conforms to these polar opposite values? and why those terms are practically useless?
Ah ok, all im saying is your forms of discrimination by their very nature are overly simplistic - you only have TWO definitions (good/evil) so the whole range of human behaviour has to be somehow lumped into those two catagories, not exactly a good way to go about defining anything id say, human behaviour or anything else for that matter.
Ok i'll give you one example out of hundereds: schizophrenics, if you were in charage of the world someone with schizoprenia would simply be evil, and we would not be permitted to describe or understand them beyond your two word definitions of good/evil.
Thankfully we live in a world where thats not the case, and people with schizophrenia can we treated with medication so they dont go around bashing someones head in because they believe theyre the devil.
So humanity is doomed and we should just give up on ourselves?
It is speculated that Ramirez was influenced to go on his killing spree by the stories told by his cousin who claimed to have been a Green Beret in Vietnam. Mike, the cousin, boasted to the 10-year-old Ramirez of torturing and mutilating Vietnamese women and showed him grisly Polaroid pictures, purportedly of his victims. Ramirez was also present when the cousin murdered his wife (blood from her shooting is said to have splattered on Ramirez's face). His parents were also known to be highly religious and, particularly his father, not shy of physical punishment, from which Ramirez would try to escape by spending nights in the cemetery.
Criminal career
A Los Angeles Times article from August 1985 detailing the killings in the Los Angeles area, with an artist's rendition of Ramirez
Enlarge
A Los Angeles Times article from August 1985 detailing the killings in the Los Angeles area, with an artist's rendition of Ramirez
On June 28, 1984, Ramirez claimed his first known victim. Ramirez entered through an opened window of Glassel Park resident, Jennie Vincow, age 79. According to Philip Carlo's book, 'The Night Stalker,' he became angry after not finding anything of value to steal, and began stabbing the sleeping Vincow, eventually slitting her throat. The act of killing aroused him sexually, and he had sex with the corpse before leaving. On March 17, 1985, Ramirez jumped 22-year-old Angela Barrio outside her condo. He shot her, kicked her out of the way, and headed into her condo. Inside, was roommate, Dayle Okazaki, age 34, who Ramirez immediately shot and killed. Barrio survived. The bullet had ricocheted off the keys she held in her hands, as she lifted them to protect herself. Within an hour of killing Okazaki, Ramirez struck again in Monterey Park. He jumped 30-year-old Tsai-Lian Yu and pulled her out of her car onto the road. He shot several bullets into her and fled. A policeman found her still breathing, but she died before the ambulance arrived. The two attacks occurring on the same day bolstered media attention, and in turn caused panic and fear among the public. The news media dubbed the attacker, who was described as having long curly hair, bulging eyes and wide-spaced rotting teeth, "The Walk-in Killer" and "The Valley Intruder". On March 20, only three days after his previous murder, Ramirez abducted an 8-year-old girl from Eagle Rock from her home and sexually assaulted and murdered her. On March 27, Ramirez shot Vincent Zazarra, age 64, and his wife Maxine, age 44. Mrs. Zazzara's body was mutilated with several stab wounds, a T-carving on her left breast, and her eyes were gouged out. The autopsy determined that the mutilations were post-mortem. Ramirez left footprints in the flower beds, which the police photographed and cast. This was virtually the only evidence that the police had at the time. Bullets found at the scene were matched to those found at previous attacks, and the police realized a serial killer was on the loose. Vincent and Maxine's bodies were discovered in their Whittier home by their son, Peter.
By this time, a multi-county police investigation was in operation. The law enforcement agencies worked through the month of April with no additional attacks by Ramirez. Two months after killing the Zazzara couple, Ramirez attacked again. Harold Wu, age 66, was shot in the head, and his wife, Jean Wu, age 63, was punched, bound, and then violently raped. For unknown reasons, Ramirez decided to let her live. Ramirez's attacks were now in full throttle. He left behind more clues to his identity, and was named, 'The Night Stalker,' by the media. Those who survived his attacks, provided the police with a description - Hispanic, long dark hair, and foul smelling. On May 29, 1985, Ramirez attacked Malvial Keller, 83, and her invalid sister, Blanche Wolfe, 80, beating each with a hammer. Ramirez attempted to rape Keller, but failed. Using lipstick, he drew a pentagrams on Keller's thigh and on the wall in the bedroom. Blanche survived the attack. The next day, Ruth Wilson, 41, was bound, raped, and sodomized by Ramirez, while her 12-year old son was locked in a closet. Ramirez slashed Wilson once, and then bound her and her son together, and left.
In June and July, three more women were killed. Two had their throats slit, one was beaten to death, and all three had their homes invaded in the process. On June 27 Ramirez raped a 6-year-old girl in Arcadia, California. On July 5 Deidre Palmer, age 16, survived being beaten with a tire iron. On July 7 Linda Fortuna, 63, was attacked and Ramirez tried to rape her, but failed. On July 20 he again struck twice. In Sun Valley he shot and killed a 32-year-old man, Chitat Assawahem, and his wife Sakima, 29, was beaten then forced to perform oral sex. Ramirez then collected $30,000 in valuables, but before leaving, he sodomized the couple's eight-year-old son. Later in the same day a Glendale couple, Maxson Kneiling, 66, and his wife Lela, also 66, were shot and their corpses mutilated. On August 6 Ramirez shot both Christopher Petersen, 38, and his wife, Virginia, 27, in the head. Both somehow survived. On August 8 Ramirez shot the Northridge couple Ahmed Zia, 35, and raped and sodomized his wife, Suu Kyi, 28, and forced her to perform oral sex on him. The description of their attacker fit the previous ones given for "The Walk-in Killer".
Ramirez then left the Los Angeles area, and on August 17, he shot to death a 66-year-old man in San Francisco, also shooting and beating his wife. The wife survived her wounds and was able to identify her attacker as "The Walk-in Killer" from police sketches. Since "The Walk-in Killer" no longer fit the modus operandi of the attacker, the news media re-dubbed him the "Night Stalker".
The next big break in the case came on August 24, 1985, Ramirez traveled 50 miles south of Los Angeles, and broke into the home of Bill Carns, 29, and his fiancée, Inez Erickson, 27. Ramirez shot Carns in the head and raped Erickson. He demanded she swear her love for Satan and afterwards, forced her to perform oral sex on him. He then tied her and left. Erickson struggled to the window and saw the car Ramirez was driving. The woman survived and was able to give a description of both Ramirez and his orange Toyota station wagon. A teenager later identified the car from news reports and wrote down half its license plate number. The stolen car was found on August 28, and police were able to obtain one fingerprint that was on the mirror, from the vehicle. The prints belonged to one Richard Muñoz Ramirez, who was described as a 25-year-old drifter from Texas with a long rap sheet that included many arrests for traffic and illegal drug violations. Two days later, his mugshots were broadcast on national television and printed on the cover of every major newspaper in California. The next day Ramirez was identified, and then mobbed and beaten by residents of a Latino neighborhood in East Los Angeles as he was trying to steal a car. Police had to break up the mob to prevent them from killing Ramirez. Many people in the mob were said to have shouted "tear his limbs off!" and other such punishments.