# Charlie has aged a bit.



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


>


Yup


He's turned from a psycho douche bag into a senior citizen psycho douchebag.


Still has that twinkle in his eyes though.



(no wait, that's just the swastika).


His victims are still dead.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

he was a nut, sho 'nuff. but there have been way worse since, and they (thankfully) haven't rec'd the attention he did. 
the murders were one thing, but his philosophies, the reasons he did those things and other nutty stuff were even waaayyy more far out there.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> he was a nut, sho 'nuff. but there have been way worse since, and they (thankfully) haven't rec'd the attention he did.
> the murders were one thing, but his philosophies, the reasons *he did* those things and other nutty stuff were even waaayyy more far out there.


he didnt really "do" much, IMO.
A psycho and a douchebag, yes. And he certainly lived a violent and disfunctional life prior to the Tate/Labianca murders. But people have to take responsibiltiy for their own actions, most notably the people that actually committed the murders.
if I say here "go kill McGuinty for me", and you do it, blaming me for saying it seems like a lot of a copout. I guess I've never met someone that impressed me as so "charismatic" that I could ever see how a reasonable person could blindly follow their ridiculous orders.
Manson puts on great theatrics, but Bernardo/Homolka strike me as far more embodying evil personified, as well as equal partners in their acts.

PS. IF you do decide to kill McGuinty, you do it of your own volition and not my mentioning it as an example in the above post.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

manson used mind control techniques combined with doses to get them to do his bidding. heck, i can remember times trippin when i could have been talked into anything. lucky for me, i wasn't.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> manson used mind control techniques combined with doses to get them to do his bidding. heck, i can remember times trippin when i could have been talked into anything. lucky for me, i wasn't.


There were times in my life when I did the same drugs that Manson and his followers did.


I can't imagine under ANY circumstances, butchering a woman, eight months pregnant or for that matter, stomping on a grasshopper, because some delusional asshole suggested it.


Sorry, but personal responsibility is real.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

no argument there. i certainly didn't mean to suggest otherwise. 
what i meant was, when someone knows those techniques, combined with the trip, it makes people more susceptible to obey a frootloop like him.
they are fully responsible for what they did. i was alluding to manson's involvement making him equally responsible. 

i know for some it may be hard to imagine themselves doing those things.
but i've tripped _alot_ in my day. i've been places in my mind i wasn't meant to go to. be glad you haven't seen those places that are inside of you. they're inside of everyone. even if you're ghandi.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> manson used mind control techniques combined with doses to get them to do his bidding. heck, i can remember times trippin when i could have been talked into anything. lucky for me, i wasn't.


I think you're giving him too much credit. if Manson had even average intelligence, I would be surprised, not to mention being a master of powerful "mind control techniques".


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

Mind control is pretty serious stuff and happens today, drugs are not always related. Something as simple as sex can drive a person to do something they don't want to do or would never do on there own.

Just look at that case that just finished trail. Steph Rengal who was killed on new years day. The guy that killed her did so because a girl promised him sex. No drugs, no violence from her side, just talked him into it.

She deserved what she got and he also deserves the same, have to use your head sometimes....the one higher up!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> no argument there. i certainly didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
> what i meant was, when someone knows those techniques, combined with the trip, it makes people more susceptible to obey a frootloop like him.
> they are fully responsible for what they did. i was alluding to manson's involvement making him equally responsible.
> 
> ...


Right, and lots of people beat the shit out of their wives and kids when they drink.

The problem isn't drugs or mind control IMO. Most of the "family" had higher IQs than Manson. These whackos are responsible for their actions, no ands, ifs, or buts. 

I have also, as I mentioned, indulged in the same substances. 

There have been worse atrocities since then, but not many have their faces on T-shirts.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> There have been worse atrocities since then, but not many have their faces on T-shirts.


Sure, But it was the 60's no? peace love and all that.. + Sharon tate was very high profile Valley of the Dolls at the time and well Charlie's, just damn creepy.. Not to mention the Book Helter Skelter, the subsequent beatle song (not about that at all) and the legend grew and grew. Charlie ain't getting out cause of the legend and celebrity he brings with him...

But yeah there are many, many more worse folk out there. As for mind control? I think the US Army is pretty much winner of that contest.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i tend to avoid simplistic concepts like "good" and "evil" - they really are comic book, biblical, movie, book, fairy tale and walt disney concepts and not, i believe, relevant to the real world.

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i tend to avoid simplistic concepts like "good" and "evil" - they really are comic book, biblical, movie, book, fairy tale and walt disney concepts and not, i believe, relevant to the real world.
> 
> -dh


Hmmm. I'd be very afraid of someone that doesn't recognize the existence of good and evil in the world.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> Hmmm. I'd be very afraid of someone that doesn't recognize the existence of good and evil in the world.



I'm not sure that's what he said.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't know about that. i think the terms good and evil are very relevant to the world we live in. i may be interpreting your statement wrong, but it seems like you are suggesting that nothing is truly good or evil, as if it were a matter of perspective. if that is what you mean, i completely disagree.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

I do agree with David somewhat.

These days it is very difficult to find a pure white light person, as soon as you do, you see a dark side. It does not have to be rapist dark but just not pure white..If that makes sense.

One of the nicest guys I knew depressed me, he would give the shirt off his back for you..anything. He owns a large firm and treats his staff like gold.
Just got charged with fraud and pleaded guitly, got his 20 year old girfriend pregnant..wife was not impressed...Blew me away when I found out.
For all he has done in the community its just sad.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

There is a fine thin line between evil, and just plain stupid.

CT.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Bevo said:


> *These days *it is very difficult to find a pure white light person, as soon as you do, you see a dark side.


Not to get too philosophical, but the notion of people harbouring "good" and "evil" in varying degrees, isn't exactly a novel idea. Nor do I believe evil presents itself with greater evidence in our current society, than at any other time in history. It's very normal and human to want to quantify the level or amount of "evil' we feel/suspect to be running rampant in a given society. Of course, there's a real danger in indulging this urge. How do we decide what's "evil"? Who decides what's to be done about this "evil"? Sadly, the greatest evils humankind has faced were largely allowed to occur because many people believed they were acting in the greater interest of their society. In essence, being told what was "evil". In this sense I agree with Mr.Henman. Painting one individual black and the other white *is* Disney-esque garbage. The recent MJ thread was a classic example. Some saw a musical angel, others a criminal monster with a few ackowledging both possibilities. This mindset persists even after the "facts" come out. There have been many instances of those being charged and/or convicted falsely only to remain guilty in the eyes of many. A "societal hypochondriasis" as real and potentially damaging as "real evil".

Shawn


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Not to get too philosophical, but the notion of people harbouring "good" and "evil" in varying degrees, isn't exactly a novel idea. Nor do I believe evil presents itself with greater evidence in our current society, than at any other time in history. It's very normal and human to want to quantify the level or amount of "evil' we feel/suspect to be running rampant in a given society. Of course, there's a real danger in indulging this urge. How do we decide what's "evil"? Who decides what's to be done about this "evil"? Sadly, the greatest evils humankind has faced were largely allowed to occur because many people believed they were acting in the greater interest of their society. In essence, being told what was "evil". In this sense I agree with Mr.Henman. Painting one individual black and the other white *is* Disney-esque garbage. The recent MJ thread was a classic example. Some saw a musical angel, others a criminal monster with a few ackowledging both possibilities. This mindset persists even after the "facts" come out. There have been many instances of those being charged and/or convicted falsely only to remain guilty in the eyes of many. A "societal hypochondriasis" as real and potentially damaging as "real evil".
> 
> Shawn


couldn't agree more - good/evil is a matter of perspective - there just happens to be a lot of commonality in what the general population considers evil or good.....we only consider something good or evil based on what we're taught...nothing and nobody is inherently and universally good or evil...no evil or good actions - only actions and their reactions (consequences or benefits of which is again - a matter of perspective)

I see a debate brewing


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

lbrown1 said:


> couldn't agree more - good/evil is a matter of perspective - there just happens to be a lot of commonality in what the general population considers evil or good.....we only consider something good or evil based on what we're taught...nothing and nobody is inherently and universally good or evil...no evil or good actions - only actions and their reactions (consequences or benefits of which is again - a matter of perspective)
> 
> I see a debate brewing




what rational perspective allows for the genocidal maniacs in africa or the middle east to not be evil? 

or how about the people that blew up the world trade center?

the human predators that take advantage of the weak, or gullible, or stupid? 

the regime in myanmar that would not allow aid to their country after a 
horrible natural disaster left over a million people without shelter or food. 

those things aren't "black and white" enough to label as truly evil? 

child rapists aren't evil? 

wether or not you believe in God or even _some god of one kind or another_, what rational perspective would not label someone like, mother theresa as good? show me the evil in spending your entire life living in poverty to care for others, expecting nothing in return. 

from a strictly human perspective, there are degrees of good and evil in everyone. but to take the attitude that the concept of evil is outdated because it doesn't allow for all possible perspectives is the biggest bunch of hogwash i think i may have ever heard in my entire life. 
i can't imagine being so afraid of offending someone, or afraid of being in disagreement with someone that i wouldn't have the courage to stand up and label something for exactly what it is.
if it was your mother who manson killed, instead of sharon tate,
what if your best friend was the one who got their head cut off by that maniac on the bus earlier this year? maybe an aunt or sister a victim of ted bundy or jeffrey dahmer? i wonder how foggy the notions of evil would be then? i wonder if the folks who hold to this wishy-washy philosophy would be able to see the good in the crack head who robs your house and steals your guitars?


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

Rugburn, well said.

I don't think I agree with the black white being garbage more simple. I am one who see's it as it is, this makes me look at things my way black white.

*But*

In my 43 years I have seen all shades of those colors and people. I have learned that trust is something that should be given out sparingly.

Sorry I am not a debater, just enjoy adding to the conversation.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

to keep this about canadian guitar etc- charlie took his first guitar lessons from a canadian named alvin karpis, who was a member of ma barkers famous gang.

sorry if yall already knew that- but im just saying:smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...using a word like evil conveniently relieves us of the obligation to actually think about what we are saying, and what we believe. there is always a reason why people do the things they do.

evil is usually in the mind of the observer. in that sense it is nothing more than a way to express fear. nothing good ever comes from fear. generally, fear is the source of discrimination and hatred.

were the 911 bombers evil?

they didn't think so. in fact, they genuinely believed they were doing "good". god's will.

were they brainwashed? probably. 

historically, using the term evil has been a convenient method to scapegoat people, have them burned at the stake as witches, publicly stoned or otherwise slaughtered.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Hmmm. I'd be very afraid of someone that doesn't recognize the existence of good and evil in the world.



...i recognize the concepts, and the "rationale" (ie fear) that begets them.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

what rational perspective allows for the genocidal maniacs in africa or the middle east to not be evil? 

_...what is their belief system? religion, for example? greed? fear? ignorance? there is always something at the root of what we simplistically refer to as "evil"._

or how about the people that blew up the world trade center?

_...again, was it their religious/political beliefs (which, of course, we won't et into here)?_

child rapists aren't evil? 

_...weak, mentally disturbed...there are any number of forces at work here, and please don't tell me you think this means that i want to give them a hug and a brand new cadillac escalade. _

wether or not you believe in God or even _some god of one kind or another_, what rational perspective would not label someone like, mother theresa as good? show me the evil in spending your entire life living in poverty to care for others, expecting nothing in return. 

_...that's ridiculous._

from a strictly human perspective, there are degrees of good and evil in everyone. but to take the attitude that the concept of evil is outdated because it doesn't allow for all possible perspectives is the biggest bunch of hogwash i think i may have ever heard in my entire life. 

_...allowing all possible perspectives allows us to learn why people do the horribel things they do and, hopefully, benefit from this knowledge, perhaps even find ways to help prevent "evil" from happeneing again. is that a bad thing?_

i can't imagine being so afraid of offending someone, or afraid of being in disagreement with someone that i wouldn't have the courage to stand up and label something for exactly what it is.

_...please, this is not about being "pc", or being afraid of offending someone - where would you get such a ridicluous idea?_

if it was your mother who manson killed, instead of sharon tate,
what if your best friend was the one who got their head cut off by that maniac on the bus earlier this year? maybe an aunt or sister a victim of ted bundy or jeffrey dahmer? i wonder how foggy the notions of evil would be then? i wonder if the folks who hold to this wishy-washy philosophy would be able to see the good in the crack head who robs your house and steals your guitars

_...old, simplistic arguments like this are used to justify all kinds of "evil" in the name of...well...if you don't know, then it cannot be explaned...in any case, there is nothing "wishy-washy" about thoughtful consideration, intelligent debate, raising philosophical, moral and ethical questions....except for those who "simply" reject such concepts. people like manson, bernardo, bundy and dahmer would certainly not be included on a list of those who espouse such concepts... _

-dh


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

* Main Entry: 1evil
* Pronunciation: \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
* Function: adjective
* Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
* Date: before 12th century

1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation

the things i described seem to fit squarely in this definition. other than the reference to sin, which actually has use and meaning outside of religion, there is no mention of considering religious belief or consideration of mental stability, or any of the other justifications you want to use to avoid labeling something as evil that actually, by definition, is exactly that. 


* Main Entry: 1good
* Pronunciation: \ˈgu̇d\
* Function: adjective
* Inflected Form(s): bet·ter \ˈbe-tər\; best \ˈbest\
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gōd; akin to Old High German guot good, Middle High German gatern to unite, Sanskrit gadhya what one clings to
* Date: before 12th century

1 a (1) : of a favorable character or tendency <good news> (2) : bountiful, fertile <good land> (3) : handsome, attractive <good looks> b (1) : suitable, fit <good to eat> (2) : free from injury or disease <one good arm> (3) : not depreciated <bad money drives out good> (4) : commercially sound <a good risk> (5) : that can be relied on <good for another year> <good for a hundred dollars> <always good for a laugh> (6) : profitable, advantageous <made a very good deal> c (1) : agreeable, pleasant <had a good time> (2) : salutary, wholesome <good for a cold> (3) : amusing, clever <a good joke> d (1) : of a noticeably large size or quantity : considerable <won by a good margin> <a good bit of the time> (2) : full <waited a good hour> (3) —used as an intensive <a good many of us> e (1) : well-founded, cogent <good reasons> (2) : true <holds good for society at large> (3) : deserving of respect : honorable <in good standing> (4) : legally valid or effectual <good title> f (1) : adequate, satisfactory <good care> —often used in faint praise <his serve is only good — Frank Deford> (2) : conforming to a standard <good English> (3) : choice, discriminating <good taste> (4) : containing less fat and being less tender than higher grades —used of meat and especially of beef
2 a (1) : virtuous, right, commendable <a good person> <good conduct> (2) : kind, benevolent <good intentions> b : upper-class <a good family> c : competent, skillful <a good doctor> d (1) : loyal <a good party man> <a good Catholic> (2) : close <a good friend> e : free from infirmity or sorrow <I feel good>

— good·ish \ˈgu̇-dish\ adjective

— as good as : in effect : virtually <as good as dead>

— as good as gold 1 : of the highest worth or reliability <his promise is as good as gold>
2 : well-behaved <the child was as good as gold>


could not mother theresa's charachter be found within this definition? 
could it be possible that you called that particular question rediculous because you don't have an adequate argument against it? 

for all practical purposes, the reason or philosophy behind evil is completely irelevant, and of no significant consequence. just because someone is insane does not make their actions anything other than evil if they could be labeled as such when conducted by anyone believed to be sane. 

thoughtful consideration is definitely a mandatory tool for making any determination. i have no argument with that, nor the value of debate, such as we are currently engaged. my last paragraph posed the question of what might happen to your opinion of what evil is, if your circumstances were different. if those who most of society consider evil had directly touched your life, or the life of those you love. there is nothing in my question that suggests i am trying to justify evil. in fact, my entire argument is to the contrary. that there is no justification for evil. there are certain morals which transend race, religion, social and economic status. these are morals held by the majority of people in the world. among these it is, in a general sense, considered "wrong" to harm children (who are universally considered to be innocent to at least some degree) to steal, to tempt another's spouse, to take human life in an indiscriminant fashion. to cause harm to another human who is no threat to the safety of another. to do these things is considered evil. by the majority of the entire world. it's not just my opinion, or that of a small handful of individuals.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

To lighten the mood a bit, did anyone watch the ghost show on OLN last night?

Short story about the show concept.

This company called TAPs goes into haunted areas and tries to prove that they are or are not haunted. They use all sorts of equipment and methods trying to stay scientific.

Last night they get called to a house built over the area where Manson had the people killed. Lots of paranormal activity reported by the owner.

As the night goes on the find lots of noises and odd things, then the bomb shell. They have this lighted meter, after they sense this ghost they ask it to communicate with them by making the lights on the meter flash twice for yes once for no.
So they start asking questions and find out the guy (not sure of his name) that was killed is the ghost. The ask about Tate and find out she is also in the house. They asked the ghost if he contacted the home owner, Yes, asked how, confirmed quigy (sp) board. Owner later confirmed.

They had the ghost follow them upstars and asked the ghost to lower the room temp to 62 or something. Damned if the ghost lowered the room temp by something like 8f.

This show is supposed to be real, not sure if it is but was great to see the hair stand up on my arms!

Bev


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)




----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Bevo said:


> I do agree with David somewhat.
> 
> *These days it is very difficult to find a pure white light person, as soon as you do, you see a dark side. It does not have to be rapist dark but just not pure white..If that makes sense.*
> 
> ...


That doesnt mean that good and evil dont exist or arent inherent, it just means that we all to some extent or another, posess evil as well as good qualities, or at least may be inspired in either direction at different times.

I think you gave your friend too much credit, or judged him positively too early. Its easy to get swayed by sample acts of generosity or extreme politeness. When you look at the overall picture of a lot of people we would call "the nicest guy you'd ever meet", in a lot of cases, a better overall description would be "minimally decent morally" but a highly social personality can significantly skew that impression positively.
Thats what makes some criminals so dangerous...they seem too nice to be capable of their wrongful acts, that we trust them prematurely.


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> Not to mention the Book Helter Skelter, the subsequent beatle song...


Helter Skelter by the Beatles was recorded before the murders.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Stonesy said:


> Helter Skelter by the Beatles was recorded before the murders.


Sure but for some reason the two got connected. Right, they said Charlie was driven by the song or some such, been a long time since I read that book.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

could it be possible that you called that particular question rediculous because you don't have an adequate argument against it? 

_...oh, yes, absolutely. i'm just here for the free beer._

for all practical purposes, the reason or philosophy behind evil is completely irelevant, and of no significant consequence. 

_...really? well, that certainly relieves us all of the burden of having to look for causes for evil behavior, don't it. how convenient._ 

my last paragraph posed the question of what might happen to your opinion of what evil is, if your circumstances were different. if those who most of society consider evil had directly touched your life, or the life of those you love.

_...like most, i'd get emotional. how does that help?_

there are certain morals which transend race, religion, social and economic status. these are morals held by the majority of people in the world. 

_...yep. and that is one of the main arguments people use, for example, to codemn homosexuality and to justify their claim that it is "abnormal"._

-dh


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> _...oh, yes, absolutely. i'm just here for the free beer._


there's free beer here?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> there's free beer here?


...jeff has a cooler under his desk. you just have to wait until he goes to the can, then grab one and chug it.

-dh


----------

