Some people really are insane

[Angelique]

And I'll add another few. Traumatic brain injury, generalized anxiety disorder, and putting up with stuff for several months after my son was born like, "I love my new baby so much I COULD THROW MYSELF OFF THIS BRIDGE I happen to be crossing! Huh? Where did that thought come from?" Classic case of your example number one, post-partum depression.

I think it makes it easier for us to cope by writing off this woman's actions as the product of a mental illness. That someone could plan (as this woman did apparently from the very beginning) and carry out such a crime with a completely clear head is not something fun to consider, especially if you're comfortable in thinking each individual is good by nature, rather than a mix capable of choosing the aspects of our nature upon which we act. It's easier to assume people commit grisly crimes like this because they're mentally ill because you can treat mental illness with counseling, a variety of therapies, medication, and sometimes even hospitalization.

When the only thing wrong with someone is that at some point they decide, "What I want is more important than this other person's life," there's no pill to treat that.

[Ult_Sm86]

When the only thing wrong with someone is that at some point they decide, "What I want is more important than this other person's life," there's no pill to treat that.

That's what the psychiatric hospitals are for.

[HoodedMan]

What I am inferring simply, HM, is that any of the people in history who we attribute evil to, be it Hitler, Manson Family, etc..., we can usually discover they have anything from a minor to a very major psychosis.

Now, does this mean all people who are mentally ill are evil? No. In fact, we have good reason to believe that Abraham Lincoln had minor mental issues, as did some of our other favorite "good" people in history.

I just find it astounding that through this entire conversation I've been the only one who believes 'good' is the natural human condition. (Me being Mr. Pessimistic Atheist and all).

And by no means am I going to try to force you to "explain" yourself on your opinion, an opinion is an opinion and these kinds are rather hard to prove.

For clarification; I do take the straw man comment to heart being that this conversation is about the woman who got her baby ripped out of her by another woman, and you did infer that what I said--a natural instinct of a human would be to not do this-- was poor common sense, or rather, that common sense was fallible in this situation. To me, that is no Straw Man, however to pursue a silly argument such as whether it was or wasn't, is.

I understand that you're not saying that a psychological disorder or psychosis implies evil; I, too, would take great offense if that were your argument. What I understand your argument to be is that evil implies a psychological disorder or psychosis, an argument which I find specious. I was simply pointing out that an appeal to intuition is not a logical argument. I was also addressing your generalization and not the case at hand, thus my complaint about your straw man.

[The Drastic Spastic]

When the only thing wrong with someone is that at some point they decide, "What I want is more important than this other person's life," there's no pill to treat that.

True enough, I just believe that her method of getting what she wanted marks her as less than mentally capable. What a stupid plan, seriously. Kill someone for a baby, fine, but if someone thinks they can easily remove a baby from a dead person's guts with no training, there is something wrong with them.

What I am inferring simply, HM, is that any of the people in history who we attribute evil to, be it Hitler, Manson Family, etc..., we can usually discover they have anything from a minor to a very major psychosis.

Hitler wasn't suffering from any psychosis, at least not at the beginning of his career. He just had an idea of the world that he wanted to create at any cost, and his vision conflicted with a whole lot of people. He had 'issues' but he wasn't actually insane. Evil, maybe. But not insane, not until it all fell apart around him.

Slightly different than other's takes on UltSm's, I'm reading into it that he generally believes that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the current liberal beliefs on everything = insane and/or mentally defective. More evidence for an excessively simplified worldview that makes getting involved in debates around here extremely tiresome.

[Ult_Sm86]

Look, evil is a stupid term and is a generalization in-and-of-itself.
I have heard Bill O'Reilly, Barack Obama, Hitler, and Green Goblin called evil.

To the best of my knowledge, Hitler is the only one with any definable psychiatric "handicap". Green Goblin is fictional, Barack Obama has yet to show any proof of having one, and Bill O'Reilly is just a conceded ass hole.

Evil is a very.
Very.
Broad term.

So is the term insane however.
I have also been told that Bill O'Reilly is insane. In fact, I may have been the one who said this.
Regardless of who said it however, the fact still stands. It's a subjective term.

Now you can miss the context and read my responses the way you WANT them to be read, or you can read them how I wrote them, and it is simply this.

People who attach the term "evil" onto this woman are stupid because she clearly has a mental disorder and should be put in custody and then in a PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL so she can get some help.

We are going to pin the term "evil" on her because we treat it like a piece of flare form Chachkie's. It's not.

Nothing can be more black and white than the term disorder.

simply put: A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture. [thank you Wikipedia]
So, this bitch has a mental disorder. She's not evil.

There is a difference. And they are not the same. And they never will be. I can't be any more clear than that.

In no way should you be applying the term willynilly to people with mental illnesses just because their actions are "not expected of normal development or culture".
Manson is "evil" because he killed so many people (or rather had so many people kill for him), not because of his disorder (which I still stand by saying he had one, insecurities bordering on delusions of grandeur to say the least).
However, it is this "disorder" that caused him to do what he did. If you want to, illogically, draw a simple line saying that what I just said was "Manson is evil because he killed, he killed because of his disorder, therefore he is evil because of his disorder" than be a silly fat head and do so.

however, you are wrong and that is illogical. His disorder does not qualify his actions as evil. His actions do that.


[Edited on 15/6/09 by Ult_Sm86]

[SLiM]

Hitler wasn't suffering from any psychosis, at least not at the beginning of his career. He just had an idea of the world that he wanted to create at any cost, and his vision conflicted with a whole lot of people. He had 'issues' but he wasn't actually insane. Evil, maybe. But not insane, not until it all fell apart around him.

I call shenanigans on this! Hitler is easily showing signs of psychosis early in his "career"–not that I'd use the word "career" to define his body of work, but I digress. I promise you'll pick up on some warning signs in Mein Kampf, and the fact that he wrote the book points to his mental instability. I mean, "My Struggle"? Really? Did we not see signs of this, or what?

By the way, how did we ever get to comparing a baby-snatcher to f*cking HITLER! Six million Jews v. some fetus from the Pacific Northwest... no contest. Hell, not even in the same game.

To whomever cried "Straw Man": The entirety of 2 internet pages, and not just one aspect of this debate, have forever been wasted due to the logical fallacies committed here. I don't post often, nor do I visit message boards and forums too much–to say the least–but this debate is reassuring that I'm not completely insane myself for never hopping on the bandwagon that is internet debating.

More evidence for an excessively simplified worldview that makes getting involved in debates around here extremely tiresome.

I couldn't agree more...

[Angelique]

Ult, I'm only saying that we can't rule out the possibility that the woman committed the crime while in full possession of normal mental faculties and a healthy biochemical balance. I am, of course, operating under the assumption that none of us have psychoanalyzed her or have any information on her competency hearings. The most we can do at the moment is merely speculate based on her actions what her mental condition was at the time, and as I've said before, actions in and of themselves are no indicator of mental health or illness. People in perfect mental health are also perfectly capable of doing atrocious things. Most people with mental health issues also could go a lifetime without getting into trouble, but they don't get any space in the media. First of all, our culture is still one that stigmatizes mental illness. For another, it's the stories like Andrea Yates' that sell papers and generate web traffic, not the boring stories of ordinary people who do nothing wrong, living relatively normal lives while coping with the exact same condition she has.

[Elfdame]

Anybody here read Dr. M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie? It might be an interesting component in a discussion such as we are having here, whether one agrees with his hypothesis (that's not the correct word but my brain is cheatin' me at the mo) or not.

[Ult_Sm86]

And nowhere did I say that this isn't true Ange. I never said that someone with mental instability can't live normal or average lifestyles.

However, this chick has clearly got something wrong with her. I certainly think that this set of particular actions clearly define her mental health as unstable. And peoples actions are, and always have been, one of many various types of indicators.

[Angelique]

^And this is where we disagree. Without psychoanalysis, it is not clear that this woman has anything wrong with her other than giving her own selfish desires higher priority than the lives of other people, an attitude that is actually alarmingly common in our society. Or maybe my objection is mainly to how you phrase your opinion as fact. It may be clear to you that she's mentally incompetent. However, knowing all too well as I do what kinds of things people are capable of doing or thinking while perfectly sane, it's not all that clear to me. And if she's ruled competent to stand trial or any insanity defense cannot stand, it will be clear to the courts that she's sane and therefore should be held fully accountable for her actions.

[HoodedMan]

People who attach the term "evil" onto this woman are stupid because she clearly has a mental disorder and should be put in custody and then in a PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL so she can get some help.

We are going to pin the term "evil" on her because we treat it like a piece of flare form Chachkie's. It's not.

What in the name of Jesus Allah Buddha are you talking about? We treat it like what?

However, this chick has clearly got something wrong with her. I certainly think that this set of particular actions clearly define her mental health as unstable. And peoples actions are, and always have been, one of many various types of indicators.

You don't seem to get where people are disagreeing with you. People are disagreeing with you here. It's possible for people to do these things not because they have a psychological disorder or psychosis but because they can. Because they want to. And most call that motivation evil. Yes, it is a word with null semantic value.

You're saying that it's not possible that people do these things if they lack a psychological disorder or psychosis, and thereby you are stating a conditional that most moralistic people think is not logically contingent, even though you think it is.

[Slarti]

We are going to pin the term "evil" on her because we treat it like a piece of flare form Chachkie's. It's not.

I think the word you're going for there is tchotchke, unless you're talking about the restaurant from Office Space, which is actually Chotchkies, and makes the comment equating flair and the concept of evil even weirder, dude.

[Ult_Sm86]

I think the word you're going for there is tchotchke, unless you're talking about the restaurant from Office Space, which is actually Chotchkies, and makes the comment equating flair and the concept of evil even weirder, dude.

Merely stating that we are viewing it (evil) as a decoration to personality instead of an action that defines it. This woman's action can be defined as "evil" all you want, I don't see the logical chance that someone of full mental health would do this. Again, not all people with poor mental health do this, but there's no way all her beans are in place.

I feel I have exhausted my point, so that said, I'm settled.

[Slarti]

Had to get in that last word a week later?

[Ult_Sm86]

I purposely avoided it so I wouldn't set myself off and I could collect my thoughts. Having read it and letting my ... for lack of a better word, temper, subside, I realize it is both silly and obnoxious detail to be battling about. A semantic, in my opinion, that is being torn apart due to minor grievances in both definition and usage.

Ironically, I could argue you had to have the last word, but that would be almost as trivial as continuing this nonsense that has become both off topic from the conversation and disagreeable to multiple parties. That said, I'd rather stop while I'm... "ahead", I suppose. Last word or not, it's become a pointless debate and I'm much more excited at the prospect of making verbal battle over things such as Universal Healthcare.




WHOOPS! Thought this was the Tehran thread, i gotta edit out this video link. Sorry for any temporary confusion!

[Edited on 24/6/09 by Ult_Sm86]