Happy Atheist Forum

I thought this may be an interesting topic. I was just reading this article:

QuoteInmate rips out eye, then claims he ate it
Judge ruled him competent to stand trial after similar incident in 2004
Jan. 9, 2009, 10:26PM

A Texas death row inmate with a history of mental problems pulled out his only good eye, authorities said Friday.

Andre Thomas told officers he ate it.

Thomas, 25, was arrested for the fatal stabbings of his estranged wife, their young son and her 13-month-old daughter in March 2004. Their hearts also had been ripped out. He was convicted and condemned for the infant's death.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6202701.html

(Read the rest of the article... it's special.)

...and it got me to thinking. It's related to the death penalty and therefore morality (hence the Philosophy section), but with the added flavor of insanity (though the concepts of reality and sanity are both debatable). How should we deal with the criminally insane?

Great topic!  Sanity is a legal term and not a psychological term and I think that confuses a lot of people.  Someone can be legitimately mentally ill and still be considered sane by the courts and therefore considered competent.  But someone can have no shred of mental illness and be considered insane and therefore not considered competent.

Since they found this guy compentent that tells me he has some misfiring going on but is all too aware of his actions.  I don't think anyone would argue that some of our most notorius criminally insane (Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, etc) had some mental issues but they knew what they were doing, covered up their crimes and continued on their path of insanity.

I think Texas has the right idea, although I think we need to usher them into the execution a little more quickly to avoid this kind of delay.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"How should we deal with the criminally insane?

Use them as railway sleepers?

Kyu

If I was facing the death penalty, I would rip out an eye in an effort to avoid it, seems like a pretty sane thing to do.

Catch 22 almost.

Man, that's one creepy dude. He looks so calm in his picture. He is clearly off his rocker.

SSY, could you REALLY rip our you eyeball??? Can you even imagine how painful that would be? Have you ever tried to even cut yourself?

This was his ONE GOOD EYE! He already ripped out the other in 2004, and it did him no good legally. It clearly was no legal ploy.

As for what we should do with guys like this, I'm torn. Perhaps the kindest thing is to put him to death. He cannot possibly be happy. I am against the death penalty, though. I think it would behoove us to study him in a lab, both psychiatrically and physiologically to see what went wrong and try to learn from it.

R

Quote from: "Wraitchel"As for what we should do with guys like this, I'm torn. Perhaps the kindest thing is to put him to death. He cannot possibly be happy. I am against the death penalty, though. I think it would behoove us to study him in a lab, both psychiatrically and physiologically to see what went wrong and try to learn from it.

This is what I was getting to when I created this thread... is this one of those times when we just call "mercy killing" and be done with it? I just don't know where we would draw the line, you know? I mean, maybe the authors of the DSM-V could put something together, but... I mean, wow. Hah.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"Man, that's one creepy dude. He looks so calm in his picture. He is clearly off his rocker.

SSY, could you REALLY rip our you eyeball??? Can you even imagine how painful that would be? Have you ever tried to even cut yourself?

This was his ONE GOOD EYE! He already ripped out the other in 2004, and it did him no good legally. It clearly was no legal ploy.

As for what we should do with guys like this, I'm torn. Perhaps the kindest thing is to put him to death. He cannot possibly be happy. I am against the death penalty, though. I think it would behoove us to study him in a lab, both psychiatrically and physiologically to see what went wrong and try to learn from it.

R

if I was depserate, I would give it a damn good go, maybe  :crazy: )

You say you want the kindest thing for them, and consider killing them to be it. But becuase of your own beliefs you instead decide to condemn them in a lab? Surely they will be much more unhappy there than dead? he is still a person, and using a person for experimentation against their will is a bit unethical ( I asuume he would refuse anyway, he may not in order to try and stave off his execution ).

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Wraitchel"As for what we should do with guys like this, I'm torn. Perhaps the kindest thing is to put him to death. He cannot possibly be happy. I am against the death penalty, though. I think it would behoove us to study him in a lab, both psychiatrically and physiologically to see what went wrong and try to learn from it.

This is what I was getting to when I created this thread... is this one of those times when we just call "mercy killing" and be done with it? I just don't know where we would draw the line, you know? I mean, maybe the authors of the DSM-V could put something together, but... I mean, wow. Hah.

I don't think there is a line.. To me, anyone with the ability to kill someone is broken. It is just a matter of how broken they are. With regards to why people get this way? Well, it is obviously an enormously complicated socio-environmental question. If there was a straight answer, we'd have dealt with the problem by now. If I am to simplify things though, I'm pretty sure most people in a secure unit can profess to having had a really shitty life.

The positive correlation between a healthy mind and a happy life is no coincidence.

As to what we should do with 'broken' people? Simply keep them away from the rest of society whilst trying to solve the massive issues which lead to people becoming this way in the first place.

Quote from: "SSY"If I was facing the death penalty, I would rip out an eye in an effort to avoid it, seems like a pretty sane thing to do.

Catch 22 almost.

Seeing how you'd probably have to be crazy in order to go through with it, it's actually exactly like Catch 22.

All law theory should be approached in this way: how you want the system work if it happened to you?

What if you were the perpetrator or perpetrator's family?

What if you were the victim or victim's family?

The thing about insanity is it can happen to anyone, even good people. There's no appeal to deterrents to be made. If I go insane and kill people, I'd like to be treated like any other sick person and merely be isolated from others, like in an asylum.

Quote from: "Loffler"The thing about insanity is it can happen to anyone, even good people. There's no appeal to deterrents to be made. If I go insane and kill people, I'd like to be treated like any other sick person and merely be isolated from others, like in an asylum.

If you go insane and kill people, are you sure you would understand that you should be isolated from others? Most murderers who perpetrated via reasons of insanity believe they are justified and did nothing wrong. Some even feel a tremendous weight lifted after the murders have taken place, and feel completely "normal" again.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Loffler"The thing about insanity is it can happen to anyone, even good people. There's no appeal to deterrents to be made. If I go insane and kill people, I'd like to be treated like any other sick person and merely be isolated from others, like in an asylum.

If you go insane and kill people, are you sure you would understand that you should be isolated from others? Most murderers who perpetrated via reasons of insanity believe they are justified and did nothing wrong. Some even feel a tremendous weight lifted after the murders have taken place, and feel completely "normal" again.

I didn't say I'd want to be isolated once I'd already gone crazy, I'm telling you what I'd want right now. And that's the best compromise between what I'd want as the victim and what I'd want as the perpetrator.

This will probably be the harshest post I write on this forum.
I have zero sympathy for people like that. My opinion, it's too bad that he couldn't just be killed after what he did to his innocent wife and child. I don't care if it's painful or quick and peaceful for him, but he should be dead. It's a waste of alot of taxpayer money to keep people like him alive, IMO. I don't care if the guy was criminally insane, or in his "right mind" (though I don't see how that could be possible) the world is a better place without him. Some people have mentioned learning from him. How is that going to help prevent things like this from happening in the future? It won't as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, maybe it'll just let us know why someone did what they did after the fact in the future, but most of the time you can't see these things coming. How many serial killers/rapists/child molesters/etc.. have all the people after the fact said something along the lines of, "I never saw this coming," or "It couldn't have been them, they were just too normal/nice/loving/etc..."
Unfortunately, the "insane" just seem entirely too "sane" until after the deed has been done and it's too late.
And what good could come out of their seclusion from the rest of society? What positives can be gained from throwing them in a cage for the rest of their miserable lives? How does society benefit from that?
Society loses would be my answer.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"This will probably be the harshest post I write on this forum.
I have zero sympathy for people like that. My opinion, it's too bad that he couldn't just be killed after what he did to his innocent wife and child. I don't care if it's painful or quick and peaceful for him, but he should be dead. It's a waste of alot of taxpayer money to keep people like him alive, IMO. I don't care if the guy was criminally insane, or in his "right mind" (though I don't see how that could be possible) the world is a better place without him. Some people have mentioned learning from him. How is that going to help prevent things like this from happening in the future? It won't as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, maybe it'll just let us know why someone did what they did after the fact in the future, but most of the time you can't see these things coming. How many serial killers/rapists/child molesters/etc.. have all the people after the fact said something along the lines of, "I never saw this coming," or "It couldn't have been them, they were just too normal/nice/loving/etc..."
Unfortunately, the "insane" just seem entirely too "sane" until after the deed has been done and it's too late.
And what good could come out of their seclusion from the rest of society? What positives can be gained from throwing them in a cage for the rest of their miserable lives? How does society benefit from that?
Society loses would be my answer.

For the simple reason that the justice system sometimes makes mistakes and the wrong people are put to death... With the small chance that this can happen, it is worth keeping people in a jail rather than putting them down, no matter what they have done, in my opinion.

Criminal is a juridical term (tortious interference); and insane is a pseudo-medical term.  'Criminally insane' is just non-sequitur.
Any 'sane' society will always condone retaliation against property agressors, and only property agressors.  I'm not interested in the military supercriminals and those who support them, nor their preferences, as regards acceptable institutions.

Quote from: "AnnaM"Criminal is a juridical term (tortious interference); and insane is a pseudo-medical term.  'Criminally insane' is just non-sequitur.
Any 'sane' society will always condone retaliation against property agressors, and only property agressors.  I'm not interested in the military supercriminals and those who support them, nor their preferences, as regards acceptable institutions.

If what you are basically saying is that criminality and insanity are pretty much mutually exclusive then I agree with you.

Kyu

Why would a society continue to allow a confessed and brutal killer to exist?  Are we fascinated with the news stories he creates?  Are we this bored?  And I must say this story is badly reported and not exactly clearly written if a person wants to really make any judgements about the nature of this said event.  I hate shitty journalism.

I really don't care what happens to this man quite honestly.  I do know if the mental health system gets a hold of him, he will experience the fascinating and horrific new hells they have come up with to destroy the mind and replace it with what they want.  Which is most likely a drooling vegetable who will eat, excrete waste and greenhouse gases and use tax payers money, considering the knowledge level and ability of the current mental health system.  The process will be awful and if there is anything left of his free will afterwards and any realization of his crimes and a sense of humanity's right and wrong, he will exist in a metaphorical hell on earth until he finally dies.  I suppose it just comes down to how much you want to torture the person for their crimes.  Or a person's body since this guys mind seems to be completely gone.

I am confused by the human attachment to the physical body.  Whatever this man was, he has made choices that are inconceivable by most.  He confessed his crimes.  There isn't even a question here anymore of innocence.  The mind of this man is most likely gone, replaced by something faulty and animalistic, something deep in the reptile brain of humans that has little empathy or caring for anything but the self, if even that any more.

Now as far as whether or not this man is capable of standing trial, there simply isn't enough information here to decide that.  A news article isn't the same as being able to sit in on a court trail and determine whether or not this person is acting in a fashion that has any presence of foresight and is harming himself in order to get what he personally feels is a lesser plea.  Which is amusing to me considering what mental health rehabilitation and medication consists of.  I would have to have as much information as the judge to determine whether or not this man is capable of understanding the charges against him and participating in his own defense.  I think the judge is doing him a compassionate favor by allowing him a criminal trial with the chance of a death penalty rather than being determined insane and giving him "medical" treatment.  That is if there is anything human left in this man, aside from just his physical body's will to exist.

As far as what is to be done with the criminally insane?  There is no insanity, only human opinion.  Legally, a person just has to be shown to be mentally able to participate in his or her own defense.  

When a human makes the personal choice to kill another living, breathing human, they have become essentially a very dangerous animal.  The most efficient thing and merciful thing to be done with a very dangerous animal is to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible.  

And mount it's head on your wall.

Quote from: "LARA"When a human makes the personal choice to kill another living, breathing human, they have become essentially a very dangerous animal.  The most efficient thing and merciful thing to be done with a very dangerous animal is to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible.  

And mount it's head on your wall.

:D

QuoteSo, what do we then do to the executioner? Also, what would we do with soldiers? How do we draw that line? You can spin murder as much as you want, but at the end of the day it is still murder

karadan, you're creating the spin yourself by grouping soldiers and executioners in with people who in their daily lives just go haywire and rip their spouse and child's heart out.  
As far as how to draw a line, you draw one by making a distinction based on actions and facts.  There is a difference between a person who signs up for military duties to protect their country and a murderer.  A soldier is under the direction of higher officers and they are the ones who are morally responsible for the actions of war.  It is a different case entirely.  There are cases in which a person can take another person's life and military duty is one of them.  And here's another question.  Would you tell me that I have to sit back and let soldiers invade my country and I can't even defend myself with lethal force if necessary?  You say murder is murder.  So what about self-defense?  If someone attacks me and tries to kill me should I sit back and allow it or would your higher moral principles let me fight back to save my own life?  There are cases in which lethal force is acceptable.  And as far a grey areas are concerned, there are always grey areas.  Always.

This man is very dangerous.  Fine, then, if the legal proceeding are too costly and the appeals unending, let him live out his life.   And if he's determined to be in need of mental health care, psychiatry will use him as a guinea pig in the name of rehabilitation.  But that's a punishment I wouldn't force on any creature.

I was only playing devils advocate but it is a debate worth debating. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to defend ourselves from invaders because people wouldn't need to invade. In a perfect world, people wouldn't get so messed up that they cut out the hearts of children.

No matter the motive or method used, a soldier killing someone in principle is exactly the same as the psycho killing his family. The only difference is the reasons why it was done. One was following orders and one lost the ability to be rational. Mechanically, it is still one life snuffing out another. To use your quote "morally responsible for the actions of war" i feel is a misnomer. There is no such thing. Otherwise the people behind the Iraq war would be in prison right now.

I still believe there are NO cases where lethal force is acceptable. Unfortunately we live in a world where people invade other countries, burglars steal property, rapists rape people and and serial killers run amok. To kill these people is a solution, yes, but just because what they do is bad, doesn't make killing them acceptable or good. As soon as humanity gets over the reasons which give the above the impetus to kill/steal/rape/invade then we will not feel we have to kill 'for the better good' and when that day arrives, humanity will look upon its past with great scorn and venom.

I see it all from a simplistic point of view. Anyone with the drive or ability to murder is broken (including most soldiers). The synaptic pathways in their head have been wired or re-wired incorrectly. The myriad reasons why this can happen are the things we need to concentrate on developing skills to counteract. For instance, if we developed the medical ability to read a brain to a point where we could root out these anomalies and fix them, wouldn't that be useful to society?

I still stand by my original point though. The death penalty is flawed because of the mistakes which can, and have been made.

Lock them up forever. The alternative isn't worth thinking about.

QuoteI was only playing devils advocate but it is a debate worth debating.

QuoteI see it all from a simplistic point of view. Anyone with the drive or ability to murder is broken (including most soldiers). The synaptic pathways in their head have been wired or re-wired incorrectly. The myriad reasons why this can happen are the things we need to concentrate on developing skills to counteract. For instance, if we developed the medical ability to read a brain to a point where we could root out these anomalies and fix them, wouldn't that be useful to society? I think i just invented a new scientific field - psychosurgery.

I still stand by my original point though. The death penalty is flawed because of the mistakes which can, and have been made.

Is any part of the second statement is devil's advocacy?   I'm going to treat it as such and go with the debate.  No hard feelings from here on out, okay?  

The gloves are off.  If I goo to far, I apologize in advance.

That you see things from a simplistic point of view goes without saying, karadan.  You are talking of perfect worlds.  I agree with you that in a perfect world there would be no killing.  I sometimes tell myself I live for the day where the is no murder on earth.  Just one day.

But we do not live in a world like that.  We live in a world where everything dies, there are limits and we can't just wish the bad things to go away.  We have to change it ourselves if it is to be changed.

You are speaking of killing as if it is the most horrible thing to befall a person.  And you act as if your viewpoint, removing people's freedom entirely and rewiring their brains for the benefit of society is somehow more moral and just and compassionate than the capital punishment of murderers.

And then you claim to have invented psychosurgery.  What are you going to lay claim to next karadan, the internet?

Psychosurgery is nothing new.  Scrambling people's brains to make them more docile and complaint has been with us since Walter Freeman invented his so called icepick lobotomy to help get difficult people under control.  And then of course there is ECT.  A lovely procedure that involves running electric currents through the brain to induce a seizure that will supposedly cure depression.  Most of what it cures is a person's ability to recall short term events.  Now granted this procedure hasn't been extensively used on criminals.  Criminals have too many rights under the law to have such things done to them.  They have the protections of the law, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and an appeals system and courts in place for their benefit.  They are innocent until proven guilty.  They can't be tested on without consent or given potentially damaging medications against their will.  It would be unkind and unfair and cruel.  It would hurt their civil rights.  You aren't going to get very far with the psychological treatment of murderers, I'm afraid.  There are too many protections in place for them, unless of course they are determined to be incompetent and in need of psychiatric care. Sorry about the oxymoron there, folks.

Pretty much most of your psychosurgery and rewiring is going to be done to people who are suicidal, at the extreme end, to people who just make lives difficult for their families and are disobedient and think they actually have these silly things called rights and freedom.  People who are social misfits, who are never given a chance to be called innocent.  People who are considered of lesser value to society than murderers.

But I digress.  My point here is that you are not going to successfully use psychosurgery to rewire murderers because of the legal protections they have.  And any more advancement by psychiatry in this area will simply continue to allow more and more people who don't fall into the psychological norm of society to be harmed and have their rights abused since society still sees them as non-humans.

Now you say that anyone with the ability or drive to kill is broken.  You must have not evolved karadan.  Killing is deeply ingrained within the reptile brain of humans.  It is a natural ability we have.  We are very good at it.  We are the top predators on this planet.  We can not only kill any animal on this planet, but we have the ability to exterminate entire species.  We are so good at killing, in fact that we as a species can't even stop killing the very types of creature we love or even ourselves at times.

But beyond the reptile brain we also have things like empathy, love and compassion that allow us to determine self from non-self, save our own children and animals of many species, to regret our killing natures, to turn away from our very accomplished ability to kill and destroy and create new and beautiful ideas and things and even if we so choose, preserve much of this place for future generations.

We are complex animals.  We are both good and evil, to use simplistic black and white terms.  And part of us is, by nature, a killer.  It will take many, many generations of human evolution to eliminate this function, if it ever can be eliminated at all.  A killer is not a broken human.  A person who cannot fight to save their own life is a broken human.  The killing instinct is naturally ingrained.  It is part of our self-defense mechanism, part of our will to survive.  We as a species have to kill living things to eat and to live.  All of us without exception.

I already conceded to your point that the confessed murderer could be freed from the possibility of capital punishment.  It really doesn't matter that much to me as long as the psychiatric treatment of prisoners doesn't advance to where it becomes more powerful and dangerous to those in this world who are simply holding dissenting opinions.  

But you never answered my questions about self-defense.

So I'm asking you again, in your world view, do I have the right to defend myself with lethal force against a lethal attack?  I am not talking about pre-emptive war, or a Bush-type neocon political machine.  I am talking about a point in time when a country or people is under attack and they must make a decision to take up arms and defend themselves and their country from an invading force.  I am talking about a person being attacked in the dark by a criminal, or an individual waking to find their house broken into and a burgular with a weapon in ther home.  What do you allow them to do?  What actions would you allow them to take?

This is the question now.

karadan, does your worldview allow a person to fight back with lethal force if necessary, or do they have to submit to death without fighting?

Why would I have hard feelings? Just because we have a difference of opinion, doesn't mean I think any less of you! :)

QuoteIf what you are basically saying is that criminality and insanity are pretty much mutually exclusive then I agree with you.

More like 'insane' is made up, and 'criminal' is not something open to diverse interpretations unless we abandon jurisprudence altogether (as, at times, people seem to want to do).

I appreciate your reply, karadan.  Well thought out.

I don't think the idea of good or bad came into my head when dealing with this kind of subject. It's more along the idea of what's most efficient.  I have pacifistic dreams too, but I tend to take a rather cynical view of human nature.  I don't think that a person that is truly to the point that this article describes is capable of ever being rehabilitated. I also don't see how we can counteract millions of years of evolution with survival based on the need to kill and eat living things and still be considered the same species we are today.  We would have to evolve or be genetically designed into a completely different species.

In this case a judge has already ruled the man in question competent to stand trial.  He can understand the charges, understand that what he did was wrong and will face a trial.  

But no matter what I have to wonder what will happen to him.  What if he receives treatment at some point and regains an understanding of what he's done?  How could he live out the rest of his life, even in a jail cell, with that kind of guilt?  Maybe it's guilt that's causing him to try to destroy himself right now, who knows?  

It seems to me from one perspective that death would be a mercy for this individual, a chance to put an end to the suffering he has created, to forget and just lay the whole thing to rest.  Whatever broke inside him was most likely something he couldn't control or understand.  He called the cops after he did it.  He didn't want to lie or run or hide from what he'd done.  I think that jailing him would just extend a terrible and disgusting event.  Of course considering the appeals process, he's going to be living for quite awhile no matter what, so...

To you death is a matter of right and wrong, but to me what's wrong is extending severe and terrible suffering with no realistic hope of it's end.  But it doesn't matter, because this decision really isn't mine to make anyway.

Well, maybe it's as simple as eliminating all threats to a society. Of course, society is not a natural thing, we created it. But that doesn't make it any less desirable or undesirable. Keep in mind that all those who want order and society are going to eliminate threats to that order. It's not even supposed to be seen from a moral perspective. If you wanted to be benevolent and be kind to that crazy man, you would let him have what he wants. And he want's to dig the hearts out of people and eat them. Should we lock him up? Only if our morality says that killing is wrong. But as has been allready shown, blank check moral statements such as "Do not kill" hardly work in all instances. In fact, the situations in which that old abrahamic adage are truly applicable are severly limited.

Instead, do what is appropriate. That differs from case to case. Some types of mental illnesses have different affects on their victims. If someone goes insane and murders a child, but afterwards regains his sanity, I would have no problem allowing that person to go free. Killing the person now that they are sane isn't going to bring that child back, and killing him just for revenge would simply add to the death toll of perfectly good people dying.

In the case of a completely bat-shit-fucked up insane man going around thinking he's god and passing judgement on people, thus killing them in strange ritual-like ways... Well, again, situations vary. One should do what's appropriate for that situation. In the situation of the article, I see no problem with eliminating the threat quickly and painlessly. No, we don't need lethal injections or painful punishments. Put them on anaesthesia, make them calmly go under and that's the end of it. Quite possibly the best way to die.  

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I have zero sympathy for people like that.

So if you woke up from a psychotic trance with a knife in your hand and a dead stranger at your feet, you would have zero sympathy for yourself?

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I have zero sympathy for people like that.

So if you woke up from a psychotic trance with a knife in your hand and a dead stranger at your feet, you would have zero sympathy for yourself?

Frankly, if I "woke up" from a trance in that situation, I'd hope to have enough sense to kill myself.

Then again, I'm pretty sure you don't just "wake up from psychotic trances" and find that you've killed someone. I think even if you admit to it afterwards, you're still screwed up in the head and capable of doing it again. And, no, I don't think they should continue living on the taxpayer's dime.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I have zero sympathy for people like that.

So if you woke up from a psychotic trance with a knife in your hand and a dead stranger at your feet, you would have zero sympathy for yourself?

Frankly, if I "woke up" from a trance in that situation, I'd hope to have enough sense to kill myself.

I highly doubt it.

QuoteThen again, I'm pretty sure you don't just "wake up from psychotic trances" and find that you've killed someone.

People like you typically have trouble imagining that they could go crazy, so I was trying to put it into terms you understand. But ok, I won't be so cautious: if you developed schizophrenia, which is always  a possibility, you would have no sympathy for yourself?

QuoteI think even if you admit to it afterwards, you're still screwed up in the head and capable of doing it again.

Of course you're capable of doing it again. That's the whole point.

Quote from: "AnnaM"Criminal is a juridical term (tortious interference); and insane is a pseudo-medical term.  'Criminally insane' is just non-sequitur.
Any 'sane' society will always condone retaliation against property agressors, and only property agressors.  I'm not interested in the military supercriminals and those who support them, nor their preferences, as regards acceptable institutions.

  Huh?

Unfortunately with the removal of the state mental institutions, and instead instituting the requirement of "self" check-ins for adults, our people with genuine mental illness roam free unable to make rational decisions and what we have are people with severe and dangerous mental illnesses commiting crimes that could have been avoided.  Once again we went knee-jerked into an "all or nothing" system regarding our mentally ill.  Of course, back in the day when people could be indefinitely committed for mental illness it was harsh and much like being convicted without due process.  It's a no win.  But this is regarding people with actual mental illness, not all criminals (killers, rapists, etc) are genuinely mentally ill.  Some are just bad people and are well aware of what they are doing and simply do not care, do not feel remorse, don't care that it's wrong, and get off on it.  Because our brains aren't wired that way makes us think they are insane (crazy) but they may not be.  There's a huge difference between someone that rapes and kills over time and covers that up while leading a relatively normal life otherwise and someone struggling with schizophrenia that snaps and kills and can't remember what triggered it and doesn't know what happened.  We do away with the first and can try to work with the second.  

Someone said we should just keep the criminally insane in prison forever.  I am wondering if you realize how many of these people are being warehoused and how much it costs per day to keep them in prison.  It's not cost effective.  Not to mention, we warehouse "lifers" with no chance of ever getting out with people that have five and ten year sentences...what do you think that environment does to those prisoners that haven't committed henious or violent crimes...makes them a better person for when they are released?  Hmmmm, this is probably why working in prisons is one of the most stable jobs in the US, we certainly aren't lacking in prison population.

Quote from: "Loffler"I highly doubt it.

Me too, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't hope to be clear headed enough to just off myself. Problem is that if "I'm in the right mind" and I commit horrible violent acts, I probably would have no remorse or sympathy for anything or anybody. If I developed schizophrenia which "caused" me to commit horrible violent acts, it's almost completely unlikely that I would just "wake up" from it and suddenly realize the gravity of the situation. Either way, I would hope (but would almost certainly not) that I have the sense to just off myself.

Quote from: "Loffler"People like you typically have trouble imagining that they could go crazy, so I was trying to put it into terms you understand. But ok, I won't be so cautious: if you developed schizophrenia, which is always a possibility, you would have no sympathy for yourself?

If I developed schizophrenia, and as a result I committed horrible violent acts, I would probably only have sympathy for myself after being caught. The voices in my head probably wouldn't help me understand the situation I'm in, and what I've done. If I was a schizophrenic who was put into a mental institution against my will without committing horrible violent acts, I would probably have sympathy for myself then as well, because that would be like being trapped in your own personal hell. Either way, having sympathy for myself, or not, would be unimportant to the situation I'm in. I'd still be schizophrenic. And, I'd still probably want it to end. Oh, and I worked with some children who suffered schizophrenia a few years back in a group home for troubled youth that I worked at, and most of them I felt sorry for because they wanted out of their hell so bad (and tried to find ways to kill themselves) but the state would not allow it. Instead they just pumped them full of drugs, and kept them as half-zombies locked up in a home. Pretty humane, right?

Quote from: "Loffler"Of course you're capable of doing it again. That's the whole point.

So, if I'm capable of doing it again, and I'm suffering my own personal hell at the same time, tell me why I should be kept alive at the very high expense to the taxpayer? Why is that more humane than putting me out of my misery?


edit: screwed up my quoting. fixed it.

You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

Quote from: "Loffler"You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

Quote from: "LARA"To you death is a matter of right and wrong, but to me what's wrong is extending severe and terrible suffering with no realistic hope of it's end.  But it doesn't matter, because this decision really isn't mine to make anyway.

But isn't that we do all day, every day?  Eliminating suffering is as simple as eliminating all life on Earth.

Why shouldn't we kill the broken?  Because there may be something that makes life meaningful for them.  Unless they show a willingness to die, they should live (as long as they are no longer a threat to the general population).

Quote from: "jrosebud"Why shouldn't we kill the broken?  Because there may be something that makes life meaningful for them.  Unless they show a willingness to die, they should live (as long as they are no longer a threat to the general population).

And you are okay footing the bill for them to live out there lives in captivity?  And what about the threat they pose to the general population by raping and beating those other inmates that may only be incarcertated for a short period of time and then are let out to live amongst the general population again?  If we didn't have a ridiculously overcrowded prison system where "lifers" are living with the "short term" prisoners I could see it being more feasbile.  I don't want to foot the bill for people to live into their old age, and then pay for them to be hospitalized during geriatric years just for them to live out to a natural death.  We warehouse too many for far too long.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Quote from: "Loffler"But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Someone's playing a bit of devil's advocate here, I think. So, I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree with you. You're obviously not understanding that there is a difference between mental illness, and so farked-up-in-the-head-you're-a-threat-to-everyone illness. I've been speaking of the latter, whereas, I think you put them all in the former catagory. Fine with me, you have your views, I've got mine. And, btw, the car analogy is lame. No offense.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Sympathy is overrated.  Sympathy implies a shared feeling towards something or someone.  Not everyone that kills and does "crazy" things like those deemed to be "criminally insane" are suffering from a mental illness.  Many of them don't deserve any sympathy.  There's a big difference between empathizing, sympathizing and showing mercy.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Someone's playing a bit of devil's advocate here, I think. So, I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree with you. You're obviously not understanding that there is a difference between mental illness, and so farked-up-in-the-head-you're-a-threat-to-everyone illness. I've been speaking of the latter, whereas, I think you put them all in the former catagory. Fine with me, you have your views, I've got mine. And, btw, the car analogy is lame. No offense.

The difference in dangerous mental illness and non-dangerous mental illness is... one is dangerous. There is no other difference. You want them to be different so you can lump all criminals together. I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

But you don't have to lack sympathy for them to put them out of their misery. It makes no sense to have "no sympathy" for people who are essentially also victims of sickness. You might as well have no sympathy for the driver of a car who suffers a seizure and drives into pedestrians. Their brain, an organ, failed them. People with mental illness are suffering from an illness. Illness by definition can affect anyone. It's random. It doesn't just afflict evil people. This is why a more humane person would understand that it could happen to you tomorrow.

Sympathy is overrated.  Sympathy implies a shared feeling towards something or someone.  Not everyone that kills and does "crazy" things like those deemed to be "criminally insane" are suffering from a mental illness.  Many of them don't deserve any sympathy.  There's a big difference between empathizing, sympathizing and showing mercy.

Which is why we should separate those who deserve sympathy from those who don't. Sounds like you agree with me and disagree with ihateyoumike.

Quote from: "Loffler"The difference in dangerous mental illness and non-dangerous mental illness is... one is dangerous. There is no other difference. You want them to be difference so you can lump all criminals together. I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Not when the title of the thread is: Dealing with the Criminally Insane.

Oh, and the difference between dangerous people, and dangerous people with a mental illness, just happens to be mental illness. I'm not going to tell you that you want to lump all of those people together, because like your statement, it would make no sense.


And, compare me with a christian again, and we'll probably have problems. Those are fightin' words.  

I have another question for you, but I'm not even gonna bother. Turns out, I'm done debating you on this topic, as it feels like a debate with our old friend messenger. No matter what I say, you turn it around and tell me what I'm really thinking, and frankly it's frustrating, and gets nowhere. So enjoy doing what you do, I'm just not having any more of it.

Quote from: "Loffler"Which is why we should separate those who deserve sympathy from those who don't. Sounds like you agree with me and disagree with ihateyoumike.

No, I am actually saying that sympathy isn't a required human emotion.  Sympathy implies a shared emotional understanding.  It is not necessary to sympathize with anyone to show mercy, and ihatemike said he believed it to be  merciful (paraprasing of course, my words not his) to end their lives, while he has no sympathy for them.  Sympathy is not required to do the right thing or put someone out of their misery.  Most criminally insane are not mentally ill, if they are genuinely mentally ill they would be hospitalized as such and would generally be determined "not guilty by reason of mental illness or mental defect" absent that they are just broken eggs and don't deserve any sympathy.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"The difference in dangerous mental illness and non-dangerous mental illness is... one is dangerous. There is no other difference. You want them to be difference so you can lump all criminals together. I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Not when the title of the thread is: Dealing with the Criminally Insane.

Oh, and the difference between dangerous people, and dangerous people with a mental illness, just happens to be mental illness.

Actually they're completely different. A person who kills without mental illness does so with evil, venal, or calculating motivation. They know what they're doing, they know they're hurting someone else, they use all of their competent mental faculties to consider the best course of action, and despite all this they do harm anyway.

In contrast, a mentally ill person kills because the Queen of Mars ordered them to in a secret message beamed directly to their brains. Or because they thought the person they were killing was a demon. Or because moving objects scare them. Or because they were abused to the point that their minds were destroyed in their childhood. Their rational faculties are not there. The brain, like I said, is an organ. And blaming someone for a sick brain is no different than blaming them for a sick liver.

It's an entirely different crime from top to bottom. Everything about a sane and insane criminal is different. The latter lack mental stability or reason. The former lack, well, adequate sympathy for their fellow man -- like someone else I could mention.

QuoteI have another question for you, but I'm not even gonna bother. Turns out, I'm done debating you on this topic, as it feels like a debate with our old friend messenger. No matter what I say, you turn it around and tell me what I'm really thinking, and frankly it's frustrating, and gets nowhere.

How peculiar, I got the opposite sensation from this exchange. Though I can understand why you feel frustrated. I wouldn't want to debate me either.

QuoteSo enjoy doing what you do, I'm just not having any more of it.

I've replied to you a mere five times. This is the sixth. If that's too much for you, you must not have very much experience in online forums.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Which is why we should separate those who deserve sympathy from those who don't. Sounds like you agree with me and disagree with ihateyoumike.

No, I am actually saying that sympathy isn't a required human emotion.  Sympathy implies a shared emotional understanding.  It is not necessary to sympathize with anyone to show mercy, and ihatemike said he believed it to be  merciful (paraprasing of course, my words not his) to end their lives, while he has no sympathy for them.  Sympathy is not required to do the right thing or put someone out of their misery.

Then this is a response to a statement I did not make, and he should change his name to ihatereading.

I may have gotten lost in some of the exchange, it happens:)  I thought you said that he should have sympathy for them.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "jrosebud"Why shouldn't we kill the broken?  Because there may be something that makes life meaningful for them.  Unless they show a willingness to die, they should live (as long as they are no longer a threat to the general population).

And you are okay footing the bill for them to live out there lives in captivity?  And what about the threat they pose to the general population by raping and beating those other inmates that may only be incarcertated for a short period of time and then are let out to live amongst the general population again?  If we didn't have a ridiculously overcrowded prison system where "lifers" are living with the "short term" prisoners I could see it being more feasbile.  I don't want to foot the bill for people to live into their old age, and then pay for them to be hospitalized during geriatric years just for them to live out to a natural death.  We warehouse too many for far too long.

Do we not foot an equal bill (or more) for the appeals process of those on death row?  Does it not cost just as much to kill a person in the name of justice as it does to let them live their lives?

I'm perfectly fine footing the bill.  It's a part of the system that (hopefully) keeps some of those people who have the misfortune of having an underdeveloped sense of empathy from harming me and my own.

And I'm sure we could make more room in the prisons if we would stop prosecuting those who comit victimless crimes.  But I suppose that's another thread.

Quote from: "VanReal"I may have gotten lost in some of the exchange, it happens:)  I thought you said that he should have sympathy for them.

Which also is not what you said above.

"He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

Quote from: "jrosebud"Do we not foot an equal bill (or more) for the appeals process of those on death row?  Does it not cost just as much to kill a person in the name of justice as it does to let them live their lives?

Great point, I also take issue with the appeals process and don't think they should have the length of time to appeal and the number of appeals they have now.  They should be able to appeal only if new evidence is uncovered, there was gross misrepresentation, or filing a writ of habius corpus (since that's a given).  Other than that we should user them on in.

Quote from: "jrosebud"I'm perfectly fine footing the bill.  It's a part of the system that (hopefully) keeps some of those people who have the misfortune of having an underdeveloped sense of empathy from harming me and my own.

I'm not sure where you live but in Texas the average cost of maintaing an inmate in prison is $26,000 per year, and that is not including medical expenses.  That's more than a lot of the working class in this state make working full-time.  I mind.

Quote from: "jrosebud"And I'm sure we could make more room in the prisons if we would stop prosecuting those who comit victimless crimes.  But I suppose that's another thread.

Yep, can't argue with that.  Although I don't believe in victimless crimes but I think that mandatory minimum sentencing is financially cripling us, and those are imposed on primarily non-violent crimes which means when over-crowding occurs it's the wrong population that gets early release.  Even with that removed we still have an over-population issue in our prisons and I'd rather not have my tax dollars drift away towards the care of someone who should be executed.

Any argument based on taxpayers "footing the bill" for the dangerously insane could just as easily be used to justify executing all handicapped who represent a net drain.

Quote from: "Loffler"Any argument based on taxpayers "footing the bill" for the dangerously insane could just as easily be used to justify executing all handicapped who represent a net drain.

Not at all, that is a slippery slope statement.  There is no comparison between financially supporting the handicapped (most of whom support themselves or with family assistance) and indegent and supporting criminals to simply warehouse them for life.  

Again insanity does not equal mental illness.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Any argument based on taxpayers "footing the bill" for the dangerously insane could just as easily be used to justify executing all handicapped who represent a net drain.

Not at all, that is a slippery slope statement.  There is no comparison between financially supporting the handicapped (most of whom support themselves or with family assistance) and indegent and supporting criminals to simply warehouse them for life.  

You're a mayor. You got two maniacs living in an institution. One killed a guy, one didn't. Why do you think it's to execute one and not the other?

QuoteAgain insanity does not equal mental illness.

Yes, one is the accepted medical term and one isn't.

Quote from: "Loffler"You're a mayor. You got two maniacs living in an institution. One killed a guy, one didn't. Why do you think it's to execute one and not the other?

I'll play Governor since the mayor has no power over the death penalty. This a a strange question, not much information.  I have a schizophrenic in a mental hospital and a murderer who ate his victims liver in a prison ward?  The murderer dies because he knew better and didn't care and you can't correct that with talk therapy or medication.  Let's even go farther and say my schizophrenic killed someone thinking they were trying to strangle him, he lives as he did not know what he was doing and can be treated with medication and therapy to ensure the medication is working.

No comparison.

Quote from: "Loffler"Yes, one is the accepted medical term and one isn't.

No "insane" is a legal term, it refers to whether a person was aware of what he/she was doing and did they appreciate the consequences of that action.  Mental illness is a medical condition that may render a person insane during a crime but does not equate with criminal or violent acts.  They are not interchangeable terms.  A person could suffer from a mental illness and commit a murder knowing that they are doing wrong at which point they are fully responsibile for that action.  A person can commit a horrifying crime and not be suffering a mental illness and know what they were doing and they are responsible for that crime.  A person that is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime having no knowledge of what they were doing or understanding the consequences is not responsible, regardless of their mental illness or lack thereof.

Much like Andrea Yates, who although she was suffering from severe post pardom depression knew full well that she was drowing her 5 sons and even called the polic to turn herself in, she was suffering a mental illness, she was not insane at the time of the murders, she got lucky at not getting the death penalty.  She was remorseful and able to recover, and probably not a danger to society, so she lives.

I'm not saying to kill the mentally ill, I'm saying kill the responsible murderer that showed no qualms or remorse at murdering, no matter how twisted his/her mind.  I think rapists should get the death penalty too.

Quote from: "Loffler""He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

Hmmm, I knew I wasn't completely losing my mind.  You did make the sympathy argument here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2536&start=30#p33680 where you said that there is no reason for him to not have sympathy.  My original comments to you were that you do not need to have sympathy for anyone.

So again, you are saying he needs to sympathize and I am saying that there is no reason to.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler""He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

Hmmm, I knew I wasn't completely losing my mind.  You did make the sympathy argument here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2536&start=30#p33680 where you said that there is no reason for him to not have sympathy.  My original comments to you were that you do not need to have sympathy for anyone.

So again, you are saying he needs to sympathize and I am saying that there is no reason to.

You're not losing your mind, you're just not a very careful reader. Read it again, very carefully this time.

Quote from: "VanReal"I may have gotten lost in some of the exchange, it happens:)  I thought you said that he should have sympathy for them.

I was. That is what I have been saying all along.

What I HAVE NOT said is anything about putting them out of their misery. He keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why.

If you feel the compulsion to respond to this post with "He doesn't need sympathy to put them out of their misery," then you have once again misunderstood.

Quote from: "Loffler"What I HAVE NOT said is anything about putting them out of their misery. He keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why.

Really?

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"Of course you're capable of doing it again. That's the whole point.

So, if I'm capable of doing it again, and I'm suffering my own personal hell at the same time, tell me why I should be kept alive at the very high expense to the taxpayer? Why is that more humane than putting me out of my misery?

Ok, Loffler, Here is the first time I use the phrasing "putting me out of my misery." That phrase was used as a replacement for the words "killing me." Just another way of phrasing it. Semantics really. If I knew someone would be nit-picking my wording to fit their argument, I guess I still wouldn't care and word it the same way. Why? Because I'm not interested in changing your mind. I'm interested in having a discussion without resorting to being demeaning.

   

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"You said you had no sympathy for those people. Putting out of misery is one thing. No sympathy is something else. Clarify.

[Clarify] I don't have to have sympathy for a murderer to essentially be putting them out of their misery. [/Clarified]

You asked me to clarify. I did. Using the term once more to do so.

Quote from: "VanReal"It is not necessary to sympathize with anyone to show mercy, and ihatemike said he believed it to be merciful (paraprasing of course, my words not his) to end their lives, while he has no sympathy for them. Sympathy is not required to do the right thing or put someone out of their misery.

I put this here because I was mentioned, along with the phrase, "put someone out of their misery." Perhaps you did not realize that was someone else using that phrasing in the discussion.

Quote from: "Loffler"Then this is a response to a statement I did not make, and he should change his name to ihatereading.

Really? We stuck in grade school?

Quote from: "Loffler"Which also is not what you said above.

"He should have sympathy for them" is not the same statement as "he needs sympathy for them to put them out of their misery."

At no point have I debated whether or not to put them out of their misery. I disagree with it, but I haven't gone there because I'm more interested in the fact that ihatemike says he has no sympathy for them. He apparently sees no difference in evil and illness. Like a Christian out of the Dark Ages.

You bring it up again, to someone else. I have still not posted again, up to this point.
Oh, and may I point out that this was the second time you felt the need to compare me to a christian:

Quote from: "Loffler"I can understand a Christian wanting to do this, but that sort of oversimplification from a non-believer puzzles me.

Just to prove my point. Which leads us back to...

Quote from: "Loffler"What I HAVE NOT said is anything about putting them out of their misery. He keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why.

We've come full circle. By my count, and you can verify by simply reading the rest of the thread, that was two times which I mentioned "putting someone out of their misery." Once was the original, and the second was in response to a question you asked me. Hardly counts as "he keeps coming back to that, and I don't know why."
So, my point is, perhaps you should think twice before you attempt to drag someone else's name through the mud during an argument you're having which that person removed their self from earlier. There's no call for that type of thing on a civilized forum such as this one, although it sounded to me that you spend much more time on other forums than I do, which I'm thinking was possibly meant to be degrading in some way?:
   

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"So enjoy doing what you do, I'm just not having any more of it.

I've replied to you a mere five times. This is the sixth. If that's too much for you, you must not have very much experience in online forums.

I think Loffler has a multiple personality.

I never said that you said anything about putting someone out of their misery.  I said that you said you should have sympathy for them.  My comment was that he does not have to have sympathy for anyone in order to think it's okay to put them out of their misery.  Sympathy is not a requirement to thinking that's is the right thing to do.  

I'm not even sure why in the world you are hung up on that.

ilikemike does not have sympathy for them.  So what?  He doesn't have to.

The "putting out of misery" kept coming up because that is what you initially responded to with the whole requirement of sympathy comment.  

Once again an absolute and blanket statement from you creates an unfollowable thread.  Maybe 100 trees should fall on it.

ihatemike,

I haven't put words in your mouth or dragged your name through the mud,

I wasn't saying you never read, just that you don't read my posts very carefully,

I'm not sure what all the quotes you linked to were supposed to mean, I think you and VanReal and I are talking about three completely different things,

Yes I compared you to a Christian and I never denied doing that (I wish this is what we'd talked about for these past few pages instead of this bizarre miscommunication we hashed out instead),

I think you have a very short fuse when it comes to disagreement, but there's nothing wrong with not visiting other forums, I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from, and

I do not want to talk about "putting people out of their misery" anymore. I have been trying to shake that phrase from this thread ever since it was uttered and you and VanReal will not leave it alone. For God's sake, please no one else use that phrase. It's like a miasma that's following me from page to page. I was only trying to talk about sympathy for the mentally ill.


This is a weird forum. I noticed there's not much disagreement here, so maybe that's why the debate skills are rusty. I'm cool with that and I can play along, but I don't like being referred to as having multiple personality after some veeeery light disagreement. It's not very "happyatheist."

Quote from: "VanReal"I think Loffler has a multiple personality.

I never said that you said anything about putting someone out of their misery.  I said that you said you should have sympathy for them.  My comment was that he does not have to have sympathy for anyone in order to think it's okay to put them out of their misery.

I agree! Why are you having so much trouble understanding this??

Quoteilikemike does not have sympathy for them.  So what?  He doesn't have to.

?? Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Ok ok, I think I get it now: maybe people just aren't supposed to debate on this forum. Is that the answer to the riddle? I can swing that way, I just need someone to tell me I'm bringing assumptions with me to this forum. That would explain such cryptic statements as "ilikemike does not have sympathy for them.  So what?  He doesn't have to." Anywhere else it would be obvious why I'm "hung up" on it: I'm trying to debate the topic of the thread with him.

QuoteThe "putting out of misery" kept coming up because that is what you initially responded to with the whole requirement of sympathy comment.  

Once again an absolute and blanket statement from you creates an unfollowable thread.

In both cases I was trying to refute a blanket statement.

Quote from: "Loffler"In both cases I was trying to refute a blanket statement.

What blanket statement were you trying to refute?

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"In both cases I was trying to refute a blanket statement.

What blanket statement were you trying to refute?

"I have zero sympathy for people like that. My opinion, it's too bad that he couldn't just be killed after what he did to his innocent wife and child. I don't care if it's painful or quick and peaceful for him, but he should be dead."

Respond is a better word.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"In both cases I was trying to refute a blanket statement.

What blanket statement were you trying to refute?

"I have zero sympathy for people like that. My opinion, it's too bad that he couldn't just be killed after what he did to his innocent wife and child. I don't care if it's painful or quick and peaceful for him, but he should be dead."

Respond is a better word.

I thought that was where it started, and what kind of where I popped in.  That is not a blanket statment, it is an opinion and you can't refute and opinion by making a blanket statement.  You can debate an opinion with your own or with facts not necessarily in conflict with that opinion but you can't just determine someone's opinion is false:

Sample debate (A)

Pam: "I don't like bananas"
Kris: "You should like bananas"

Not really a statement that creates debate but rather a command.

Sample debate (B)

Pam: "I don't like bananas"
Kris: "Bananas are good for you, they have lots of potassium and help to avoid muscle cramps."
or
Kris: "I like bananas, they're good for you, and some people I know add them to smoothies when they don't like the taste."

The first is not something that can create a debate, it just makes the person have to justify that they don't have to like bananas, there is no link or scientific evidence to why they don't have to.

The second allows for the person to see option to the opposing opinion.  Maybe I would like them if they were mixed with something else?  Maybe the benefit of it outweighs the fact that it tastes like crap? And so on.

Like I said, and you should have read and saved yourself all that trouble, "respond is a better word."

He is entitled to his opinion. But it's a monstrous one.

In the spirit of this thread, I'm going to  give that opinion and not explain it.

Quote from: "Loffler"Like I said, and you should have read and saved yourself all that trouble, "respond is a better word."

I did read, however respond doesn't fit either, because you said you were wanting to debate it.  Make up your minds.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Like I said, and you should have read and saved yourself all that trouble, "respond is a better word."

I did read, however respond doesn't fit either, because you said you were wanting to debate it.  Make up your minds.

I do want to debate him about his opinion because it's a monstrous opinion. He lacks sympathy for some kinds of illness but not others. That's monstrous. I doubt he is a monster, so I'm operating under the hypothesis he hasn't thought his position through.

If you're suggesting it's not a matter of thinking it through because it's pure subjective opinion, then I submit to you the opinion "I have no sympathy for these despicable black people I see everywhere." It's just an opinion.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Like I said, and you should have read and saved yourself all that trouble, "respond is a better word."

I did read, however respond doesn't fit either, because you said you were wanting to debate it.  Make up your minds.

I do want to debate him about his opinion because it's a monstrous opinion. He lacks sympathy for some kinds of illness but not others. That's monstrous. I doubt he is a monster, so I'm operating under the hypothesis he hasn't thought his position through.

If you're suggesting it's not a matter of thinking it through because it's pure subjective opinion, then I submit to you the opinion "I have no sympathy for these despicable black people I see everywhere." It's just an opinion.

I'm concerned with why you need to sympathize?  Sympathy is not synonymous with empathy or compassion.  Sympathy is closer to pity, it's not an active emotion, does not accomplish anything and isn't a necessary component to doing anything positive.  Because he doesn't sympathize with people that's monstrous?  Sympathy is a wasted emotion much like guilt, it's is not productive.  I'm going to ignore the black people opinion because that's just, well it's just....

Quote from: "VanReal"I'm concerned with why you need to sympathize?  Sympathy is not synonymous with empathy or compassion.

Are we going to operate on the assumption that this is the definition ihate was using? He has compassion for these people but not sympathy?

QuoteSympathy is closer to pity, it's not an active emotion, does not accomplish anything and isn't a necessary component to doing anything positive.  Because he doesn't sympathize with people that's monstrous?  Sympathy is a wasted emotion much like guilt, it's is not productive.  I'm going to ignore the black people opinion because that's just, well it's just....

Irrelevant, you're right. Because we're not just dealing with naked opinions.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"I'm concerned with why you need to sympathize?  Sympathy is not synonymous with empathy or compassion.

Are we going to operate on the assumption that this is the definition ihate was using? He has compassion for these people but not sympathy?

QuoteSympathy is closer to pity, it's not an active emotion, does not accomplish anything and isn't a necessary component to doing anything positive.  Because he doesn't sympathize with people that's monstrous?  Sympathy is a wasted emotion much like guilt, it's is not productive.  I'm going to ignore the black people opinion because that's just, well it's just....

Irrelevant, you're right. Because we're not just dealing with naked opinions.

Um, no.  I was strictly speaking of your need to required sympathy.  A feeling, or lack of a feeling is not a naked opinion.

I think I will put myself in time out for a bit.