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.

Oh, are you a doctor? No?

Then you can't say his history implies mental illness.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That last bit is definitely not involuntary.

but is quite often ruled "temporary insanity" which implies some measure of a lack of control, or at the very least, less control over events than the OP had.

Right, which makes it 2nd degree murder instead of 1st.

 Manchu wrote:
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.

I've been in a relationship with my gf who's diagnosis had been changed recently to schizophrenic for almost two years now. I've seen her convinced the government wanted to hunt her down and try to jump in front of a train, or point out what she had said was a cow but for it to just be a tree stump instead.

I'm not talking about the conspiracy theorists, but actual stronger delusion. The warping of their perception of reality that they have little to no control over. They do indeed control their actions, but it depends on how strong the delusion is and how it goes. For example it could be a paranoid delusion that had convinced them that they had no choice but to kill them or be killed, it again depends on what that person is like. That is what I mean when I had said if people had failed to help them. They are still accountable for their actions, but the circumstances in which they take their actions are seen differently by them to everyone else.

That is simply the difference between evil and crazy, their perception they had when they made their choices along with their choices. If they perceived things as they were and chose those actions then they are evil. If their view on reality was skewed beyond their control and they chose those actions then they are either crazy or evil and crazy depending on what they perceived and how far they acted on it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh, are you a doctor? No?

Then you can't say his history implies mental illness.

And you can't say it doesn't. I am just saying think before you throw out accusations.

 Vash108 wrote:

 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.

Are you meaning to reply to me?

I am arguing that I don't think you can label a mentally ill persons actions as willful (and thus evil) if they have a dysfunctional brain.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You assume its voluntary until proven otherwise. Say by a doctor.

This.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Only if you fail to understand the context in which some are speaking to run off with your own points.

 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.

But it is the current leftwing SJW ideology*. Such that, there are external factors that are to blame and not the individual.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

So what happens if you are intoxicated from drinking where your brain really isnt firing on all cylinders. are you willful when you hit on that guy thats looks like a girl? are you responsible for it in the morning?

 Vash108 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh, are you a doctor? No?

Then you can't say his history implies mental illness.

And you can't say it doesn't. I am just saying think before you throw out accusations.

The default assumption is that someone is mentally healthy. Its not a coin toss between them. Its you are mentally healthy, unless proven otherwise. Much like innocent till proven guilty. You are mentally stable until proven not.

We have no proof he was mentally unstable, ergo he was mentally stable.

 whembly 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.

But it is the current leftwing SJW ideology*. Such that, there are external factors that are to blame and not the individual.

Ugh do not even try to label me as that waste of life.
Manchu was trying to discuss the difference between evil and crazy and I felt like joining in then suddenly he seemed to drop the ball and run off into the forest with it by quoting that one sentence to take it out of context to fit his response better.

The actual context and reasoning is about logic.

Are they still his actions? Yes so is at fault. Is he evil or crazy? It depends. If it were from a strong delusion could he have been helped? Quite possibly.
It's simply if the delusion led to someone making those choices then helping the delusion could help prevent it, but at the end of the day it is still their fault for having chosen those issues in the first place.

 Desubot wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

So what happens if you are intoxicated from drinking where your brain really isnt firing on all cylinders. are you willful when you hit on that guy thats looks like a girl? are you responsible for it in the morning?

I believe that is called impaired judgement. Or a trip to Bangkok.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh, are you a doctor? No?

Then you can't say his history implies mental illness.

And you can't say it doesn't. I am just saying think before you throw out accusations.

The default assumption is that someone is mentally healthy. Its not a coin toss between them. Its you are mentally healthy, unless proven otherwise. Much like innocent till proven guilty. You are mentally stable until proven not.

We have no proof he was mentally unstable, ergo he was mentally stable.

That is one way of thinking yes. But He did leave clues behind if you happened to read anything he wrote and the history of his interactions. As I said maybe you want to think before jumping to conclusions, you may see the world as black and white, but it isn't.

You are the one jumping to conclusions by saying 'he must have been mentally disturbed'.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are the one jumping to conclusions by saying 'he must have been mentally disturbed'.

No, I am saying that it needs to be kept in the forefront before using this Evil label and that mental illness is a big problem no one wants to discuss. As your mindset seems to prove.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
how can you call someone evil, and assign choice to their actions without knowing anything about their brain chemistry?

It must be pretty difficult to navigate social interactions for you, given your requirement of brain chemistry analysis.

Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

I agree we should have a discussion about mental illness, but we should not make that go to the forefront whenever someone does something horrible. Especially when Occums Razor is in effect here, and the easiest explanation is this person was evil.

Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such. Unlike you who are assuming he was mentally ill because you think you are qualified to make that decision.

We can talk about mental illness. It just doesn't factor into this situation, unless more information appears like a shrink saying this guy had problems.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

I agree we should have a discussion about mental illness, but we should not make that go to the forefront whenever someone does something horrible. Especially when Occums Razor is in effect here, and the easiest explanation is this person was evil.

Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such. Unlike you who are assuming he was mentally ill because you think you are qualified to make that decision.

We can talk about mental illness. It just doesn't factor into this situation, unless more information appears like a shrink saying this guy had problems.

Have an exalt.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

I agree we should have a discussion about mental illness, but we should not make that go to the forefront whenever someone does something horrible. Especially when Occums Razor is in effect here, and the easiest explanation is this person was evil.

Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such. Unlike you who are assuming he was mentally ill because you think you are qualified to make that decision.

We can talk about mental illness. It just doesn't factor into this situation, unless more information appears like a shrink saying this guy had problems.

Which was one of the things I was saying. People are afraid to talk about it and the stigma about mental health is people will not seek help out of fear.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
how can you call someone evil, and assign choice to their actions without knowing anything about their brain chemistry?

It must be pretty difficult to navigate social interactions for you, given your requirement of brain chemistry analysis.

So you really have nothing to add to this tangent about evil you so gleefully introduced to this topic? You just want to make pithy remarks? Okay.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

I agree we should have a discussion about mental illness, but we should not make that go to the forefront whenever someone does something horrible. Especially when Occums Razor is in effect here, and the easiest explanation is this person was evil.

Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such. Unlike you who are assuming he was mentally ill because you think you are qualified to make that decision.

We can talk about mental illness. It just doesn't factor into this situation, unless more information appears like a shrink saying this guy had problems.

Which was one of the things I was saying. People are afraid to talk about it and the stigma about mental health is people will not seek help out of fear.

This is true. Now why do you keep insisting this guy was crazy in absent of any evidence saying he was?

All i see is a really angry guy who decided to vent it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

I agree we should have a discussion about mental illness, but we should not make that go to the forefront whenever someone does something horrible. Especially when Occums Razor is in effect here, and the easiest explanation is this person was evil.

Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such. Unlike you who are assuming he was mentally ill because you think you are qualified to make that decision.

We can talk about mental illness. It just doesn't factor into this situation, unless more information appears like a shrink saying this guy had problems.

Which was one of the things I was saying. People are afraid to talk about it and the stigma about mental health is people will not seek help out of fear.

This is true. Now why do you keep insisting this guy was crazy in absent of any evidence saying he was?

All i see is a really angry guy who decided to vent it.

Did you actually read any of his history or things he wrote, because I am guessing you didn't.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such.

YES YES YES

Assume sanity. If a sane person commits bad acts, then we can assume bad intent.

Instead, lots of people assume insanity. On what basis? They do not believe people can be bad; they think instead that people can only be healthy or "broken."

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So you really have nothing to add to this tangent about evil you so gleefully introduced to this topic?

No reasonable person could assume as much from reading the thread. See, e.g., my point immediately above.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

When anyone behaves so out of the ordinary wouldn't it be fair to assume mental illness rather than them being "evil"? Evil is a moral judgement, and it is satisfying to pass that judgment, but it really doesn't acknowledge possible underlying physiological issues that caused the aberrant behavior in the first place.

That doesn't mean that there are no "evil" actions that take place in the world, but I'd rather assume mental illness over evil any day. Evil doesn't tell me anything useful about the person other than they differ from my own moral compass.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? Why does mental illness always have to be what we think of first when someone shots up a place?

When anyone behaves so out of the ordinary wouldn't it be fair to assume mental illness rather than them being "evil"? Evil is a moral judgement, and it is satisfying to pass that judgment, but it really doesn't acknowledge possible underlying physiological issues that caused the aberrant behavior in the first place.

That doesn't mean that there are no "evil" actions that take place in the world, but I'd rather assume mental illness over evil any day. Evil doesn't tell me anything useful about the person other than they differ from my own moral compass.

THIS!! Thank you DT

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Evil doesn't tell me anything useful about the person other than they differ from my own moral compass.

What? Being able to judge between right and wrong is probably the most fundamental requirement for society.

So what mental illness defines a child rapist?

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such.

YES YES YES

Assume sanity. If a sane person commits bad acts, then we can assume bad intent.

Instead, lots of people assume insanity. On what basis? They do not believe people can be bad; they think instead that people can only be healthy or "broken."

Which to me says more about your need to pass judgment than really understand what motivated a person to be "bad".

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So you really have nothing to add to this tangent about evil you so gleefully introduced to this topic?

No reasonable person could assume as much from reading the thread. See, e.g., my point immediately above.

See above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Evil doesn't tell me anything useful about the person other than they differ from my own moral compass.

What? Being able to judge between right and wrong is probably the most fundamental requirement for society.

And if a brain is damaged to the point where a person cannot determine right from wrong, then what?

Are they evil? I asked that a page back and you ignored it. Please answer.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Until someone is shown to be mentally ill, they are not mentally ill and cannot be assumed to be as such.

YES YES YES

Assume sanity. If a sane person commits bad acts, then we can assume bad intent.

Instead, lots of people assume insanity. On what basis? They do not believe people can be bad; they think instead that people can only be healthy or "broken."

Which to me says more about your need to pass judgment than really understand what motivated a person to be "bad".

Isn't it now a bit troubling he's a mod when you raise that point?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Which to me says more about your need to pass judgment than really understand what motivated a person to be "bad".

That's a fair distinction. I am talking about criminal justice, which is why the subject is the need to pass judgment. For the purposes of adjudging guilt, I need to know that the accused committed the act willfully and had the general capacity to comprehend the consequences. None of this is in doubt here. What brought the murderer to the point of committing the murders, the evil acts, is a subject for biographers.