NASMTrainer Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 So, you're saying a man who k1lls someone while they are rap1ng his wife is just as accountable as a cold-blood murdr??? That's a total different thing, the man that kills to defend his wife is doing so in a moment of great stress and rage, the guy with the gun is planning it, following through on it and then planning it all over again. Man with the squirt gun that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Believe it or not, Rince, just because you or I may find someone's behavior incomprehensible it doesn't mean it's insane. This guy is clearly NOT crazy. He knows what he's doing. He's immediately running, knowing what he's doing is wrong, and he doesn't want to get caught so he can keep doing it. He's in obvious and complete control of his actions, as disgusting as they are. And, though you can't conceive of doing it, he can, knowing how wrong it is. That makes him perfectly sane.Insane, though, would be your response that he is somehow not in control of his actions and he's under some foreign control forcing him to do these things. He understands the risks and he tries to avoid getting caught. That's the very definition of sane. I buy this argument much more than Ghost's. Maybe its the same argument, but Art worded it better. I still say the guy is not 100% there, though. I also admit i used the word 'crazy' rather liberally - i didn't really think that it was that important though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 So, you're saying a man who k1lls someone while they are rap1ng his wife is just as accountable as a cold-blood murdr??? No, because there's a moral component to your actions, which is what I believe rince is saying. Killing someone in the process of committing a heinous act against any innocent party would be justified. Cold-blooded murder of someone you just don't like or whose money you want is of a different moral quality than defense of another or rage at a great crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 So, you're saying a man who k1lls someone while they are rap1ng his wife is just as accountable as a cold-blood murdr??? I think he is saying, that a murderer whether or not he is insane, is a danger to people and must be prevented from doing further harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 That's a total different thing, the man that kills to defend his wife is doing so in a moment of great stress and rage, the guy with the gun is planning it, following through on it and then planning it all over again.Man with the squirt gun that is But, he said that didn't matter. I'm just going by what Crazy said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 So, you're saying a man who k1lls someone while they are rap1ng his wife is just as accountable as a cold-blood murdr??? My opinion has nothing to do with self-defense/defense of others. In the heat of the moment, of course you defend yourself or loved ones. I don't think that's in the same category of sane/insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 No, because there's a moral component to your actions, which is what I believe rince is saying.K1lling someone in the process of committing a heinous act against any innocent party would be justified. Cold-blooded mrder of someone you just don't like or whose money you want is of a different moral quality than defense of another or rage at a great crime. I agree - but he said you should be judged by only your actions and not your state of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I buy this argument much more than Ghost's. Maybe its the same argument, but Art worded it better. I still say the guy is not 100% there, though. I also admit i used the word 'crazy' rather liberally - i didn't really think that it was that important though. It is the same argument. And it IS important that one recognize the difference between 'crazy' and acts or persons we simply do not understand. It's important in determining guilt and responsibility. In the final analysis, it wasn't merely the use of the word crazy that brought controversy to the thread but the idea that he is somehow deserving of a compassion that we would NOT be asked to show a man guilty of some other heinous act. And that it was the word choice and the seeming explicit meaning of your previous posts that conveyed the idea that this man was deserving of compassion, if only because his actions seemed too bizarre to you. Whereas a man who had previously only masturbated to images of children and graduated to serial child rape and murder would not have merited such a response from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I agree - but he said you should be judged by only your actions and not your state of mind. You're taking my words way too literally. In your example, my state of mind wouldn't matter because the situation demanded action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 It is the same argument. And it IS important that one recognize the difference between 'crazy' and acts or persons we simply do not understand. It's important in determining guilt and responsibility. That's what i meant by you sounding like you're justifing this guy. You make it sound like it is simple misunderstanding of the guy. Unfortunately for the guy he has a perversi0n that has been deemed illegal and about the most ghastly thing one could do. If he is perfectly sane, he would understand that and not attempt to live it with an unwilling participent in a public place. I would love to continue this, but it will have to wait. I'm at work and WAY too many of this words are getting caught in my filters, and therefore posting is getting extremely fustrating. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I would love to continue this, but it will have to wait. I'm at work and WAY too many of this words are getting caught in my filters, and therefore posting is getting extremely fustrating. :mad: **** **** *** **** *** ******** ***** **** ****** **************-********-**** **** lol, jk, I only typed stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 That's what i meant by you sounding like you're justifing this guy. You make it sound like it is simple misunderstanding of the guy. Unfortunately for the guy he has a perversi0n that has been deemed illegal and about the most ghastly thing one could do. If he is perfectly sane, he would understand that and not attempt to live it with an unwilling participent in a public place. See, this is what I'm not getting. One, I'm not justifying him at all. I'm opposing your definitions because I believe they EXCUSE his crime as being the product of an unhinged mind. I'm saying he is RESPONSIBLE for his actions. I think you are just misreading my posts. My words are quite clear, I do not mince them. The last sentence there is...huh? If he were perfectly sane he would not attempt to do something like that in a public place. So bank robbers are now--insane? DO you know that most robbers do not merely steal to acquire money? There is a 'rush' to committing a crime. This does not make them not perfectly sane. It means they are making immoral and destructive choices. I really don't get how you're reading any justification in my posts. It's simply not there. I'm speaking for accountability and to the fact that evil (insofar as men choose it) does exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I think you are just misreading my posts. I think hes pulling your short hairs, and your letting him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I think hes pulling your short hairs, and your letting him. He must be insane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 See, this is what I'm not getting. One, I'm not justifying him at all. I'm opposing your definitions because I believe they EXCUSE his crime as being the product of an unhinged mind. I'm saying he is RESPONSIBLE for his actions.I think you are just misreading my posts. My words are quite clear, I do not mince them. The last sentence there is...huh? If he were perfectly sane he would not attempt to do something like that in a public place. So bank robbers are now, not insane? DO you know that most robbers do not merely steal to acquire money? There is a 'rush' to committing a crime. This does not make them not perfectly sane. It means they are making immoral and destructive choices. I really don't get how you're reading any justification in my posts. It's simply not there. I'm speaking for accountability and to the fact that evil (insofar as men choose it) does exist. Okay, i don't think anything there will set off my filters... I see what you're saying. I just have a hard time reconciling doing that to a child with somebody that does not have a sick mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Unfortunately for the guy he has a perversi0n that has been deemed illegal and about the most ghastly thing one could do.If he is perfectly sane, he would understand that and not attempt to live it with an unwilling participent in a public place. Then the drug dealer on the corner selling dope is crazy by your reasoning, right? I guess he doesn't understand what drugs do to people and families and kids...sorry not trying to attack you.EDIT: Added sentence for Rince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I think hes pulling your short hairs, and your letting him. :shhh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Then the drug dealer on the corner selling dope is crazy by your reasoning, right? I guess he doesn't understand what drugs do to people and families and kids... Why did you edit out the sentence right before the one you quoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I'm thinking this thread has shot its load. Multiple puns! :wavetowel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Sorry - when you live out your fantasy and unwillingly involve other you cross the line from fetish to crazy. I understand your reaction. But many violent people, sexually manifesting or otherwise, who do absolutely heinous things, are not (accurately) clinically diagnosable with a "they can't help themselves" type of disorder, or any other disorder for that matter. Being a sociopath, for instance is not a diagnoses, but a state of outlook and behavior. A diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder is different, and has to meet complex, detailed criteria to be valid. That is one reason why many vicious murderers are found completely sane to stand trial. It is accepted by the professional mental health community that people are capable of any range of behaviors on a natural level without diagnosable psychopathology. It may be socially, morally, and legally reprehensible without being automatically "insane." Where there is specific evidence of a specific disorder (ideally) one (or several) is diagnosed. Where there is not, no matter how repulsive the act in question, no diagnosis should be offered. Some lay people think "no one can do something like this and be sane." That can be your opinion, but it is not the operating premise of the profession, though no doubt some members, being people themselves, subscribe to it. Some people are just foul, IMO. And as someone who has spent much of my life helping others in various ways, I've also smacked the crap out of a few without remorse. So you can lump me in with either group. That said, violence should be anything but a casual indulgence, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 In the future i will make sure to specify whether i mean 'clinically' crazy or the usual layperson definition of crazy when i say someone is off of their rocker. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 In the future i will make sure to specify whether i mean 'clinically' crazy or the usual layperson definition of crazy when i say someone is off of their rocker. Sorry for the confusion. well, for the debate at hand, the layperson definition has no bearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 well, for the debate at hand, the layperson definition has no bearing. I also never said i meant the layperson definition. Like i said before - maybe its just me, but i have a hard time reconciling what this guy did with a person of sound mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 YI'm saying it's a perversion and that he is RESPONSIBLE because he's not insane. Everything you've been saying is pretty accurate, from my perspective. Now I don't know this guy's life, so I've been speaking in the general sense. I've talked to plenty of these guys from McNeil Island, Nibbs, and most of them ain't insane, just totally self-centered and willful. You can say their social development went awry and events not in their control were damaging and might be correct, but most are still totally responsible for how they chose to deal with that and adapt as they became adults and were able to reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Obviously this was a Cowboys fan retaliating after the father of the girl -- some idiot skins fan -- purposely sprayed grape soda all over the cowboy's fan beloved TO jersey. Karma. It's a b-tch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.