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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

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.

I'll answer.

A mentally ill person, in a vacuum... is NOT EVIL.

It's what they actually *DO* determines whether they're Evil™, not what they are or what they're suffering from.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
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.

I didn't see your question. But you are asking it in bad faith anyway considering I have already posted:

 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).

 n0t_u wrote:
Isn't it now a bit troubling he's a mod when you raise that point?

It should not trouble you at all. It just goes to show that I would consider the intent of the person when thinking about how to deal with rule-breaking.

 Manchu wrote:
I didn't see your question. But you are asking it in bad faith anyway considering I have already posted:

I really resent the accusation that my question was made in bad faith. I am genuinely trying to understand your position on this matter because it seems completely devoid of any contemporary understanding of mental health. So I am excusing myself from this conversation because it is a waste of time with you.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
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.

I didn't see your question. But you are asking it in bad faith anyway considering I have already posted:

 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).

 n0t_u wrote:
Isn't it now a bit troubling he's a mod when you raise that point?

It should not trouble you at all. It just goes to show that I would consider the intent of the person when thinking about how to deal with rule-breaking.

I was poking fun.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
it is a waste of time with you

The feeling is mutual, precisely because you seem to be arguing in bad faith.

 n0t_u wrote:
I was poking fun.

Even so, it's not a bad example. As a moderator I assume (all joking aside) that all users are sane. When someone breaks the site rules, I assume they had bad intent. If it becomes apparent that they have no capacity to abide by the forum rules (just want to clarify that, as a moderator, I am in no way qualified to judge whether they are mentally ill) then I would, after consultation with the whole staff, permanently suspend their account. Intent and capacity are taken into consideration. Folks who demonstrate bad intent are temporarily or eventually permanently suspended. We don't go further than that. Sometimes users will say "well I had a bad day" but that is immaterial; it doesn't excuse bad behavior even if it might explain it.

Maybe he was crazy.

Maybe he was just an angry, angry donkey-cave.

Maybe it was a little of both.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

I have gotten more hostility and bizarre crap for being Jewish and/or liberal than for being an atheist. However, there is quite a lot of overlap bias against "nonChristians" in general.

 Manchu wrote:
(just want to clarify that, as a moderator, I am in no way qualified to judge whether they are mentally ill)

Good to know. It is my understanding that diagnosis mental illness across the internet is nigh on impossible. Any qualified individual doing such a thing would have to explain why they attempted it to their professional body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:
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.

And the reduction in funding and services means limited access


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

The persecution complex, delusions of grandeur, and claiming Jehovah told him to kill might all be reasons to suspect mental illness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
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.

Also saying an act is evil does not exclude the possibility that the individual responsible was not mentally ill, and to say the act was evil does not necessarily pass judgement on the person who committed it. We can examine the act separate from the actor

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
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.

Also saying an act is evil does not exclude the possibility that the individual responsible was not mentally ill, and to say the act was evil does not necessarily pass judgement on the person who committed it. We can examine the act separate from the actor

That isn't what this whole evil tangent was about.

 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.

It has always been about assigning "proper" blame. Saying someone did an evil act and is crazy is fine with me. But Manchu clearly seems to think that mental illness is an excuse that we give to obfuscate evil. Which I find to be a ridiculous stance because this isn't the Spanish fething Inquisition.

Yet more bad faith argumentation from DarkTraveler777. This time he's willfully ignoring this exchange:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

"He was just crazy" does often seem like a way of abdicating responsibility, but I don't think it's as much about taking it away from the shooter. It's more like mental illness as uncontrollable event, like the weather. If the shooter is just crazy then the rest of us don't have to think about anything else that might have caused him to act that way.

 Manchu wrote:
Yet more bad faith argumentation from DarkTraveler777. This time he's willfully ignoring this exchange:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

I actually missed that post of yours on the bottom of page six.

Looks like it happened to both of us in this discussion, so kindly walk back your claims of my arguing in bad faith. I doubt you will, as you often toe the line of appropriate posting behavior.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
kindly walk back your claims of my arguing in bad faith

Honestly? You just accused me of trying to impose some kind of Spanish Inquisition, which frankly I didn't expect. All jokes aside, that's bad faith purely as matter of hyperbole. I understand that you missed that post but even so you went straight off the deep end.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
If the shooter is just crazy then the rest of us don't have to think about anything else that might have caused him to act that way.

I agree that's a problem but I think it is separate from the issue of moral responsibility. "He was crazy" is dismissive of your "anything else" (from his perspective, racism and homophobia) as well as the fact that he, him, no one else, is the guy who pointed a gun at three people intending to murder them, and was successful as to two of them.

 kronk wrote:
Maybe he was crazy.

Maybe he was just an angry, angry donkey-cave.

Maybe it was a little of both.

The more I read about this guy, the more and more it seems like option C here. Rather, seems like rather a lot of Option C.

 Manchu wrote:
"He was just crazy" does often seem like a way of abdicating responsibility, but I don't think it's as much about taking it away from the shooter. It's more like mental illness as uncontrollable event, like the weather. If the shooter is just crazy then the rest of us don't have to think about anything else that might have caused him to act that way.

That too ofc. But it's also about the US meme of declaring yourself insane to get out of legal trouble. It's some sort of urban legend there that you can get off scot free if you're insane.

Funny thing is most US defense lawyers advise against claiming insanity (because it seldom works), and when someone IS found to be crazy enough to not be responsible he'll be locked up in a mental institution. An institution where he'll on average spend more time than if he'd gotten prison for his crime, and with fewer chances to get out on parole.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That too ofc. But it's also about the US meme of declaring yourself insane to get out of legal trouble. It's some sort of urban legend there that you can get off scot free if you're insane.

Funny thing is most US defense lawyers advise against claiming insanity (because it seldom works), and when someone IS found to be crazy enough to not be responsible he'll be locked up in a mental institution. An institution where he'll on average spend more time than if he'd gotten prison for his crime, and with fewer chances to get out on parole.

A defendant can declare himself insane to try and run that defense, but there needs to be evidence that he is suffering from a mental illness.

So it looks like more bodies are joining the gun control crowd..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34077174

The father of Alison Parker, one of two journalists killed live on air, has appealed to US President Barack Obama to push through tougher gun laws.
"You need to do this... I will help you do this and the press is with you on this because they just lost one of their own," Andy Parker told the BBC.
Staff at WDBJ TV in Virginia have been mourning the loss of his daughter, a reporter, and cameraman Adam Ward.
They were shot dead live on air by a disgruntled ex-colleague on Wednesday.
The attack has reignited the debate about gun control laws in the US.

Mr Parker acknowledged it would be an uphill battle to change the law, but said the president could take on the challenge as he had with other issues including healthcare reform.
"Mr President, you need to do this. Please do it. Please do it for us and for other people so they're not going to lose their Alisons and their Adams," he said in an emotional message.
President Obama supported legislation to extend background checks for gun buyers and a ban on rapid-firing assault weapons after 26 people were killed at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, but it was rejected in 2013.
Last month, he told the BBC the failure to pass "common-sense gun safety laws" was the greatest frustration of his presidency.
On Wednesday, he said the US needed to do "a better job of making sure that people who have problems, people who shouldn't have guns, don't have them."
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said she would "take on" the issue of gun violence, while admitting it was "a very political, difficult issue in America".
She said: "I want to reiterate how important it is we not let yet another terrible incidence go by without trying to do something more to prevent this incredible killing that is stalking our country."
Republican presidential hopefuls Jim Gilmore and Ben Carson have warned against any rush to introduce tougher gun controls.
Although the issue has stalled nationally, gun control measures have gone ahead in the last two years in several states.
'We will heal'
WDBJ Roanoke news director Kelly Zuber said in a news conference on Thursday that none of her news teams had been doing live shots for the last two days "out of an abundance of caution".
She said the gunman, Vester Flanagan, may have discovered the location of the news crew after watching them in an earlier TV appearance at Bridgewater Plaza in Moneta on Wednesday, and had enough time to drive to the area before their second live appearance.
The station's general manager, Jeff Marks, also said Flanagan had vowed to make "a stink" soon after he was fired from the station two years ago.
Earlier on Thursday, the station held a minute's silence on air in memory of the two slain journalists. "We will, over time, heal from this," WDBJ7 anchor Kim McBroom told viewers, holding hands with two colleagues.
Bunches of flowers and black ribbons have been placed outside the channel's headquarters in Roanoke.
Flanagan, who posted online a video he had filmed of the attack, died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound later on Wednesday.
Memos from the station reveal Flanagan, who used the on-air name of Bryce Williams, had been ordered by the station's bosses to seek medical help and expressed "aggressive" behaviour toward colleagues.
WDBJ's former news chief Dan Dennison said on Wednesday Flanagan had complained of racial discrimination but "all these allegations were deemed to be unfounded".
Flanagan had to be escorted from the building by police when he was fired "because he was not going to leave willingly", he added.
In a 23-page fax sent to ABC News, Flanagan said his anger had been "building steadily" and a recent attack on black church-goers in Charleston, South Carolina, had driven him to "tipping point".

 angelofvengeance wrote:
So it looks like more bodies are joining the gun control crowd..

And yet support for gun control remains at an all time low. So what gun control measures would you like to see? Will your proposals affect millions of law abiding Americans?

Which is absurd. He could done what he did with a knife. Easily. And the visual would have been MUCH worse.

 cincydooley wrote:
Which is absurd. He could done what he did with a knife. Easily. And the visual would have been MUCH worse.

Given the fact that he appeared with a gun and went away and came back I believe you could be right. His victims were focused on the task at hand rather than him.

 cincydooley wrote:
Which is absurd. He could done what he did with a knife. Easily. And the visual would have been MUCH worse.

True, but bullets travel faster than someone swinging a knife at you. Gives you less time to react to the threat.

 Manchu wrote:
Seems we are only calling this guy crazy because we are uncomfortable with the word evil.

No. I think we're calling him crazy for several reasons, foremost being that sane, rational people do not resolve their feelings of anger via ambush murdering them.

Mostly, however, calling someone evil is sort of useless. The United States tolerates a level of gun violence that is unparalleled among first-world nations, so clearly this is not just the way people be. As such, we must try to find a way to remediate this. If someone is mentally disturbed, there is at least the possibility that more intensive screening prior to being able to purchase a firearm* might assuage the problem somewhat. It at least offers a constructive approach.

Deciding that someone is evil sort of just helplessly resigns us to the status quo, well: "he was evil, can't do anything about, with that supernatural pull on his moral compass being more downward than upward and all."


*that the political realities of this passing being unlikely this being set aside for this discussion.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Which is absurd. He could done what he did with a knife. Easily. And the visual would have been MUCH worse.

True, but bullets travel faster than someone swinging a knife at you. Gives you less time to react to the threat.

Not convinced it would have mattered. Kill the dude. Women are easy. And it's silent. That camera man would be on the ground bleeding out before the women knew what happened.

 cincydooley wrote:
Which is absurd. He could done what he did with a knife. Easily. And the visual would have been MUCH worse.

Should we issue the army knives instead of M4's? The idea that gun regulation doesn't matter because violent people will always do violent things is sort of silly, because it's going to be fairly difficult to kill 30 people in a movie theater or a school with a kitchen knife. Although I believe one Chinese fellow made a go of it a few years ago.

 cincydooley wrote:
Not convinced it would have mattered. Kill the dude. Women are easy. And it's silent. That camera man would be on the ground bleeding out before the women knew what happened.

Did you even think before typing that??

Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Which is absurd. He could done what he did with a knife. Easily. And the visual would have been MUCH worse.

Should we issue the army knives instead of M4's? The idea that gun regulation doesn't matter because violent people will always do violent things is sort of silly, because it's going to be fairly difficult to kill 30 people in a movie theater or a school with a kitchen knife. Although I believe one Chinese fellow made a go of it a few years ago.

The example you're referring to is probably the Chenpeng Village School attack, as it happened within a few hours of the Sandy Hook attack. There have actually been a few stabbing attacks in china over the past few years, all of which seem like they would have been much more deadly with a gun, so I find the argument that 'it would have been just as bad with a knife' to be silly.

Yeah, that's the one. Looks like no one died.

Medical evidence is conclusive that guns create nastier wounds than knives.

I'm sorry, did no-one here pick up on cincydooley's comment that women are easy??...

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Not convinced it would have mattered. Kill the dude. Women are easy. And it's silent. That camera man would be on the ground bleeding out before the women knew what happened.

Did you even think before typing that??

Yes. I did. Unless you want to purposefully and ignorantly take it out of context.

Ouze - I agree with you, but my comments are very specific to this incident. That father could have given a fat feth about gun cntrol until his kid was murdered. I don't say that with the intent to be callous, but rather to respond to the reactionary claim about this particular incident. Crazy dude was going to kill them. Crazy dude, in this instance, didn't need a firearm to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I'm sorry, did no-one here pick up on cincydooley's comment that women are easy??...

Be more obtuse?