Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vash108 wrote:
Even the Catholic church is guilty.

Damn, how many shots into the reporters did the Church get in?

 n0t_u wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Like Stalin. Unlike Hitler who was crazy and evil, Stalin was just evil.

Yeah, the man who executed all of his officers, he wasn't crazy.

Depends on his reasoning and state of mind actually. If it were paranoia for example it's crazy, if he felt they weren't doing their job well enough and that's the way he fired them then that's much more likely to be evil than crazy.

The issue is the two are too often entwined when they really don't need to be.

Its not really paranoia if its true.

Im sure more than a few people he executed were truly plotting against him.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Like Stalin. Unlike Hitler who was crazy and evil, Stalin was just evil.

Yeah, the man who executed all of his officers, he wasn't crazy.

Depends on his reasoning and state of mind actually. If it were paranoia for example it's crazy, if he felt they weren't doing their job well enough and that's the way he fired them then that's much more likely to be evil than crazy.

The issue is the two are too often entwined when they really don't need to be.

Its not really paranoia if its true.

Im sure more than a few people he executed were truly plotting against him.

Seriously, learn your history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

 n0t_u wrote:
Just someone had failed to help him before someone got hurt, tragically.

This is exactly why it is so important to remember that evil is a thing and not just an outdated term for crazy. When you say that people failed to help this murderer, you are basically asserting that "they" (us?) -- rather than the murderer -- are the sine qua non. The murderer would not have murdered his victims but for their (our?) failure. This is ... questionable thinking.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
That's not the majority of us. Most Christians, pastors and ministers included, would happily sit down and have a well thought out discussion with you involving point and counter point as to the existence of God, Jesus and Heaven.

Honestly man, I hope it is the case. I've had a few really good discussions over the past couple years with religious folks.... But as I said, if you scroll through comments sections around the internet, both social media and "regular" articles, there's a lot of heated vitriol out there. And I know it goes both ways.

 CptJake wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
Even the Catholic church is guilty.

Damn, how many shots into the reporters did the Church get in?

around 1478, probably a lot into many reporters.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ensis, if you 100% absolutely had to have ONE term that fit atheists from a non-atheist viewpoint, I think you'd be better off with the term "unfortunate". It's unfortunate that you don't believe in God. It's unfortunate that according to my belief, you won't get into heaven due to that. It's unfortunate if you have no interest in changing your mind. But evil? Nah. That's Westboro Baptist style thinking right there. Aka, false Christians and terrorists. That's not the majority of us. Most Christians, pastors and ministers included, would happily sit down and have a well thought out discussion with you involving point and counter point as to the existence of God, Jesus and Heaven.

I have a Christian friend like that. We have wonderful debates about religion and morality and while it may get heated, it never gets ugly and we always walk away friends. From my personal experience he is a rare case. Most Christians I have interacted with are closer to the Westboro folks than my buddy. Not saying they are the same, but if there were a spectrum with Westboro on one end and my friend on the other, the majority of Christians I have interacted with would be within brick throwing distance of Westboro and could only see my friend with binoculars.

One of my favorite exchanges from the movie Dogma sums up why I think this is the case:

Rufus: He [God] still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the gak that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

 Manchu wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Just someone had failed to help him before someone got hurt, tragically.

This is exactly why it is so important to remember that evil is a thing and not just an outdated term for crazy. When you say that people failed to help this murderer, you are basically asserting that "they" (us?) -- rather than the murderer -- are the sine qua non. The murderer would not have murdered his victims but for their (our?) failure. This is ... questionable thinking.

Agreed on that front.

Though I do think that there may have been people close to him, who could have noticed some swift and uncharacteristic changes. But then again, if the reports on his temper are accurate, that he had these issues for some time, and actually cost him multiple jobs, I can see how the "signs" could be missed.

I don't think "we" the 299 million Americans as a collective whole are to blame one bit, as it's impossible for everyone to be in a position to "help". But perhaps, there may have been 5-10 people who could have helped him in some way? Was he surrounded by people saying, "hey man, I think you should calm down, think about this gak a bit" or was he surrounded by people saying, "hell yeah, they fethed up!! They racist fools, you deserved to keep that job!"

Apparently, the culprit used to be on TV here in our area and got fired for some uknown reason

And to avoid the impending counter point, yes, I know there are obnoxiously vocal and intolerant atheists too.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Just someone had failed to help him before someone got hurt, tragically.

This is exactly why it is so important to remember that evil is a thing and not just an outdated term for crazy. When you say that people failed to help this murderer, you are basically asserting that "they" (us?) -- rather than the murderer -- are the sine qua non. The murderer would not have murdered his victims but for their (our?) failure. This is ... questionable thinking.

Agreed on that front.

Though I do think that there may have been people close to him, who could have noticed some swift and uncharacteristic changes. But then again, if the reports on his temper are accurate, that he had these issues for some time, and actually cost him multiple jobs, I can see how the "signs" could be missed.

I don't think "we" the 299 million Americans as a collective whole are to blame one bit, as it's impossible for everyone to be in a position to "help". But perhaps, there may have been 5-10 people who could have helped him in some way? Was he surrounded by people saying, "hey man, I think you should calm down, think about this gak a bit" or was he surrounded by people saying, "hell yeah, they fethed up!! They racist fools, you deserved to keep that job!"

Like I said before, with the Stigma on mental illness, some people are afraid to go get help. Then it gets to be too late.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ensis, if you 100% absolutely had to have ONE term that fit atheists from a non-atheist viewpoint, I think you'd be better off with the term "unfortunate". It's unfortunate that you don't believe in God. It's unfortunate that according to my belief, you won't get into heaven due to that. It's unfortunate if you have no interest in changing your mind. But evil? Nah. That's Westboro Baptist style thinking right there. Aka, false Christians and terrorists. That's not the majority of us. Most Christians, pastors and ministers included, would happily sit down and have a well thought out discussion with you involving point and counter point as to the existence of God, Jesus and Heaven.

I have a Christian friend like that. We have wonderful debates about religion and morality and while it may get heated, it never gets ugly and we always walk away friends. From my personal experience he is a rare case. Most Christians I have interacted with are closer to the Westboro folks than my buddy. Not saying they are the same, but if there were a spectrum with Westboro on one end and my friend on the other, the majority of Christians I have interacted with would be within brick throwing distance of Westboro and could only see my friend with binoculars.

One of my favorite exchanges from the movie Dogma sums up why I think this is the case:

Rufus: He [God] still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the gak that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

Honestly, Kevin Smith's viewpoints in Dogma should be written into the Bible. The Boble Testament, if you will. The stuff he put in there really is an uplifting experience.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ensis, if you 100% absolutely had to have ONE term that fit atheists from a non-atheist viewpoint, I think you'd be better off with the term "unfortunate". It's unfortunate that you don't believe in God. It's unfortunate that according to my belief, you won't get into heaven due to that. It's unfortunate if you have no interest in changing your mind. But evil? Nah. That's Westboro Baptist style thinking right there. Aka, false Christians and terrorists. That's not the majority of us. Most Christians, pastors and ministers included, would happily sit down and have a well thought out discussion with you involving point and counter point as to the existence of God, Jesus and Heaven.

I have a Christian friend like that. We have wonderful debates about religion and morality and while it may get heated, it never gets ugly and we always walk away friends. From my personal experience he is a rare case. Most Christians I have interacted with are closer to the Westboro folks than my buddy. Not saying they are the same, but if there were a spectrum with Westboro on one end and my friend on the other, the majority of Christians I have interacted with would be within brick throwing distance of Westboro and could only see my friend with binoculars.

One of my favorite exchanges from the movie Dogma sums up why I think this is the case:

Rufus: He [God] still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the gak that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

There are few examples like that with me. I usually run into hostility when I state my views and am met with hostility and how I am going to burn in hell. Especially here in the bible belt.

Bible Belt is mostly baptist extremists, one step away from being Westboro. One of the most level headed religious figures I know here on the east coast is also a baptist. And he's the minister of the local church in the town I grew up in. Told him the premise of Dogma, and he ran out to go watch it enthusiastically.

This thread is filling up with good examples of how dismissing evil acts as mental illness is a way to blame anyone other than the person who committed the evil acts. Let's say that somebody failed to get this murderer "the help he needed" -- I guess that failure is also a bad act. Can we say that the guy failed to help the murderer because somebody else failed him? We could go on and on with the result that no one has any moral responsibility.

Or we could acknowledge that this murderer comprehended the malicious nature of his intent and willfully executed it nonetheless.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ensis, if you 100% absolutely had to have ONE term that fit atheists from a non-atheist viewpoint, I think you'd be better off with the term "unfortunate". It's unfortunate that you don't believe in God. It's unfortunate that according to my belief, you won't get into heaven due to that. It's unfortunate if you have no interest in changing your mind. But evil? Nah. That's Westboro Baptist style thinking right there. Aka, false Christians and terrorists. That's not the majority of us. Most Christians, pastors and ministers included, would happily sit down and have a well thought out discussion with you involving point and counter point as to the existence of God, Jesus and Heaven.

I have a Christian friend like that. We have wonderful debates about religion and morality and while it may get heated, it never gets ugly and we always walk away friends. From my personal experience he is a rare case. Most Christians I have interacted with are closer to the Westboro folks than my buddy. Not saying they are the same, but if there were a spectrum with Westboro on one end and my friend on the other, the majority of Christians I have interacted with would be within brick throwing distance of Westboro and could only see my friend with binoculars.

One of my favorite exchanges from the movie Dogma sums up why I think this is the case:

Rufus: He [God] still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the gak that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

Honestly, Kevin Smith's viewpoints in Dogma should be written into the Bible. The Boble Testament, if you will. The stuff he put in there really is an uplifting experience.

I would so read the Boble Testament. Especially if there was a Gospel According to Jay included.

 Manchu wrote:
This thread is filling up with good examples of how dismissing evil acts as mental illness is a way to blame anyone other than the person who committed the evil acts. Let's say that somebody failed to get this murderer "the help he needed" -- I guess that failure is also a bad act. Can we say that the guy failed to help the murderer because somebody else failed him? We could go on and on with the result that no one has any moral responsibility.

Or we could acknowledge that this murderer comprehended the malicious nature of his intent and willfully executed it nonetheless.

But isn't that also dismissing mental illness? It is a big problem and until we can have an actual discussion as a country about it it will be continued to be swept under the rug as... EVIL (DUN DUN DUN!)

We are having an actual discussion here and now. I am arguing against confusing malicious antisocial behavior undertaken intentionally (evil) with irresistible, involuntary impulses (mental illness).

 Vash108 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This thread is filling up with good examples of how dismissing evil acts as mental illness is a way to blame anyone other than the person who committed the evil acts. Let's say that somebody failed to get this murderer "the help he needed" -- I guess that failure is also a bad act. Can we say that the guy failed to help the murderer because somebody else failed him? We could go on and on with the result that no one has any moral responsibility.

Or we could acknowledge that this murderer comprehended the malicious nature of his intent and willfully executed it nonetheless.

But isn't that also dismissing mental illness? It is a big problem and until we can have an actual discussion as a country about it it will be continued to be swept under the rug as... EVIL (DUN DUN DUN!)

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion.

If the actions are evil, but those actions are a result of a damaged brain or thought process or whatever, did the person willfully execute those actions? Willfully to me implies choice, but if your brain is misfiring is that a choice?

When I have the flu I don't choose to cough, I cough because my body is not functioning correctly and producing mucus that prevents me from breathing. Maybe that is a bad analogy, but hopefully everyone gets my point. If the brain (an organ) is damaged, can choice be ascribed to an individual's actions?

See above.

 Manchu wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Just someone had failed to help him before someone got hurt, tragically.

This is exactly why it is so important to remember that evil is a thing and not just an outdated term for crazy. When you say that people failed to help this murderer, you are basically asserting that "they" (us?) -- rather than the murderer -- are the sine qua non. The murderer would not have murdered his victims but for their (our?) failure. This is ... questionable thinking.

To use them interchangeably is to simply not understand either. I'm saying if they are indeed mentally ill and this was the fault of some delusion then yes, I would say they are crazy and they were failed to be helped. A delusion can be strong, it's their reality and it can make people do some really stupid things. The help is to help them see past that. I'm simply talking along the line of if he was mentally ill as we were discussing the differences between them.

I'm not saying it is our failure that caused this tragedy. It is still them who are the ones who did it and are ultimately at fault.

 Manchu wrote:
We are having an actual discussion here and now. I am arguing against confusing malicious antisocial behavior undertaken intentionally (evil) with irresistible, involuntary impulses (mental illness).

As am I.

Being delusional is not mental illness. You can wind yourself up about, for example, conspiracy theories but doing so does not excuse your moral responsibility for planning and executing a murder.

 Manchu wrote:
See above.

Ok.

 Manchu wrote:
We are having an actual discussion here and now. I am arguing against confusing malicious antisocial behavior undertaken intentionally (evil) with irresistible, involuntary impulses (mental illness).

How do you determine what is undertaken intentionally versus involuntarily?

You assume its voluntary until proven otherwise. Say by a doctor.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
How do you determine what is undertaken intentionally versus involuntarily?

How do you do this in your everyday life?

 Vash108 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
Even the Catholic church is guilty.

Damn, how many shots into the reporters did the Church get in?

around 1478, probably a lot into many reporters.

Ah yes, that clearly makes the Catholic Church guilty.


Sorry I doubted of the veracity your initial claim.

 Manchu wrote:
We are having an actual discussion here and now. I am arguing against confusing malicious antisocial behavior undertaken intentionally (evil) with irresistible, involuntary impulses (mental illness).

Agreed.... Guy stews for a period of time, plots and plans a course of action; then takes said course of action = evil


Involuntary impulse= man comes home from work early to find wife in bed with another guy, goes off and ends up killing her.


(just as a hasty example)

That last bit is definitely not involuntary.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
How do you determine what is undertaken intentionally versus involuntarily?

How do you do this in your everyday life?

I generally assume everyone is mentally ill.

But seriously, how can you call someone evil, and assign choice to their actions without knowing anything about their brain chemistry?

In the case of this particular shooter there is a history that implies mental illness. If he did have a defective brain, were his actions willful? I am not convinced they are any more than I willfully cough when sick.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This thread is filling up with good examples of how dismissing evil acts as mental illness is a way to blame anyone other than the person who committed the evil acts. Let's say that somebody failed to get this murderer "the help he needed" -- I guess that failure is also a bad act. Can we say that the guy failed to help the murderer because somebody else failed him? We could go on and on with the result that no one has any moral responsibility.

Or we could acknowledge that this murderer comprehended the malicious nature of his intent and willfully executed it nonetheless.

But isn't that also dismissing mental illness? It is a big problem and until we can have an actual discussion as a country about it it will be continued to be swept under the rug as... EVIL (DUN DUN DUN!)

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion.

If the actions are evil, but those actions are a result of a damaged brain or thought process or whatever, did the person willfully execute those actions? Willfully to me implies choice, but if your brain is misfiring is that a choice?

When I have the flu I don't choose to cough, I cough because my body is not functioning correctly and producing mucus that prevents me from breathing. Maybe that is a bad analogy, but hopefully everyone gets my point. If the brain (an organ) is damaged, can choice be ascribed to an individual's actions?

So you don't think because someone has a view of themselves being always slighted through out their life, as wrong as they may be, doesn't cause any lasting effects to twist that persons views of what is normally right and wrong? The guy already wrote about these slights he has felt and it was the twig that broke the sanity.

For the most part mental illness is not some switch that just clicks on and you decide "well maybe I will be crazy today!"

Let me also say I am in NO WAY trying to say he is just crazy send him to a padded room. I am saying mental illness causes a lot of problems over a long period of time. It is easy to say someone is just a evil bastard but that isn't always the case. How can we stop this kind of thing from happening in the future, how can we spot it earlier and actually do something about it!

It's so easy to point fingers and use the big E-Word and not actually look for a cure.