dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

I say brave because I supposed it takes real stupidity, blind hatred, or insanity to do something like this with no fear for your own safety. Do you remember Bill Maher calling the 9/11 terrorists brave? He took a lot of heat for that. Yet how many people would be brave (if that's the right word) enough to do such a deed, even among those terrorists who hate Americas, or who strap on a suicide bomb? Yes, I agree it's a true oxymoron.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Is mental illness the cause of shootings as President Trump stated?

acknowledgeurma

If devotion to certain ideologies can be considered a mental illness then yes.

acknowledgeurma

brave: ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage.
courage: the ability to do something that frightens one
bully: a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.

Most would agree that prisoners are vulnerable. Guards regularly use harm and intimidation as a function of their job - controlling prisoner behavior. Guards bully prisoners. Prisoners can be a danger to guards. A guard who fears this danger, and stays on the job, would be a brave bully. No oxymoron.

billman6 Loc: Top of Texas

Do the left wing media's words matter or are you just a pathetic hypocrite. The crap they say it's hella worse than anything Trump has said. I'm sure you are ok with that though.

acknowledgeurma

I suppose it depends upon one's values, perspective, and goals. Wind arrows.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

What are the ideologies that could be considered a Mental Illness? Islam? White Nationalism? Racism? Communism? Black Liberation Theology? Christianity? ??????? Or is it only the devotion that is a mental illness?

How could devotion to an ideology be considered a mental illness? How can you tell which is and which isn't? I'm afraid you lost me on that one. I don't follow your train of thought.

acknowledgeurma

From:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/symptoms-causes/syc-20374968
Mental illness, also called mental health disorders, refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.

Many people have mental health concerns from time to time. But a mental health concern becomes a mental illness when ongoing signs and symptoms cause frequent stress and affect your ability to function.

A mental illness can make you miserable and can cause problems in your daily life, such as at school or work or in relationships. In most cases, symptoms can be managed with a combination of medications and talk therapy (psychotherapy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if devotion to an ideology makes you miserable and causes problems in your daily life, then it's a mental illness.
If it only makes others miserable and causes problems in their lives, it's not a mental illness.

Generally people are "good" (they don't kill other people). But ideology can get "good" people to kill other people.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

[quote=acknowledgeurma]From:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/symptoms-causes/syc-20374968
Mental illness, also called mental health disorders, refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.




acknowledgeurma;
How about devotion?
You said, "If devotion to certain ideologies can be considered a mental illness, then yes." But can it be considered a mental illness? How can it be a mental illness if it doesn't cause problems in yours or others lives? If you go out and shoot someone and it isn't because of devotion or being convinced to do so by an ideology then it isn't a mental illness? What is it then? Was it the devotion or the ideology? Did the shooter have mental Illness? And which ideologies can lead to or result in mental illness?

"If" is such a funny word. He wouldn't have killed all those people "if": If he had got help sooner, or if someone intervened sooner, or if he didn't have a gun, or if he didn't have ammunition, or if he hadn't driven 900 miles to the destination or if he hadn't a car available, or if Trump hadn't told him to kill Mexicans, none of this would have happened? Oh, wait, Trump didn't tell him to kill Mexicans! Well now, that changes everything. And "if" I had a billion dollars I would be a billionaire. But I don't have a billion dollars. So, is what he did because of mental illness?

See, I don't believe that people are generally good, I believe that they act "good." I also don't believe they are generally evil. But they can also act badly. Does that make them bad? It is moral training from a proper upbringing that makes us act not bad and not evil. Goodness is in the deeds we do. Just because a person doesn't kill someone that doesn't make the person good!

You cited the mayo clinic, That is a cop-out because you don't explain why "you" think he was or was not mentally ill. You don't explain "if" he was or was not mentally ill. He may have been completely rational.
Do "you" have any thoughts on the subject?

Just out of curiosity, what is your educational background? From previous responses, I surmise that we are not much different in age. And If I remember correctly you are in Texas or went to school in Texas? Am I correct?

acknowledgeurma

[quote=dtucker300]
I began my freshman year at a Texas public university with a double major (Math and Physics). By the end of that year, Kirchhoff had convinced me to drop Physics. A class on Differential Equations encouraged me to drop Math. My father, on hearing my plan to become a minister, suggested that I take some Psychology classes. I became interested in Psychology as a science and graduated with a BA: Psychology major, Math minor. Love (lust?) drew me to a different Texas city where (failing to find a job (a BA in Psychology didn't qualify me for much)) a relatively high GRE score gained me admission to a Psychology PhD program. This was not a clinical program; I was interested in Psychology as a science, not as an engineering discipline . I took a lot of statistics classes and fortunately I was allowed to take computer science classes to fulfill a Foreign Language requirement (). For various reasons I did not complete the PhD program, but I was able to get a job as a Mathematical Statistician (computer programmer) for the Dept. of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. After a few different jobs, I ended my wage slave life as a Senior Software Engineer in the military–industrial complex.

You wrote, "He may have been completely rational." Hume wrote, "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions". A question occurs; what are passions slave to, perhaps ideology, perhaps disease?
But you want to know why I think he [the El Paso shooter] was or was not mentally ill. [Irony Alert] Even though my one class in Abnormal Psychology 50 years ago makes me well qualified to answer, I would hesitate to give a diagnosis without further study of the shooter's history and actions.

There are indications that he released a manifesto. I presume this manifesto set forth a set of ideas (an ideology) that guided his actions (evidence of his devotion to this ideology). Since he didn't martyr himself, presumably mental health professionals can arrive at a diagnosis.

If the shootings were a result of his devotion to his ideology, then it might be reasonable to attribute some responsibility for his actions to those who encouraged his devotion.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Thank you for your response. An interesting background you have.

I remember after Sputnik there was a big push in math and science. I took college prep courses in both. Then I was drafted into the Army and spent my time in Germany as an MP. I considered going into law enforcement as my father had done. My best friend from High school also did this, but I decided it just wasn't for me. I don't like the authoritarian attitude that attracts many who seem ill-suited for the job. In my experience, I venture that about 1 in 4 working for law enforcement agencies have no business being in that line of work. Got out or the military and although heavily recruited to join several agencies I decided to go back to school. I never decided on a major and at some point, I considered becoming a teacher. I was more interested in Grade 5-8, or high school math. As it turned out I went to work on the Space Shuttle project for a few years, suffered through lay-offs, and got out of the military-industrial complex where I too was working for less than adequate wages. I looked into teaching but decided that I wouldn't enjoy the politics of the teaching system. I ended up managing a Bowling center and taught bowling for many years. But that is another story.

To this day I still hate computers and all the associated technology we have become saddled with. I spend my time going out in my RV with a group of friends. I don't use technology except for email. Does that make me look more like the Unabomber? Or, just your average garden variety Luddite?

If the shooter was rational then it is we who are crazy, yes? Maybe he was just evil and acted on these selfish impulses. If he had an accomplice, and it is beginning to look like he was aided, that person is just as guilty and should be held accountable. But everything on our part is speculation at this time. I am content to let the wheels of justice take their course of action in whatever direction they may take. I am hopeful that we will learn more about what drives a person to commit such heinous acts.

Do you remember a year or two back where a boy committed suicide? His girlfriend told him basically to man-up and just do it. Is she just as responsible for his death? Morally? legally? I don't remember the outcome but it seems as though they did put her on trial for her part in the boyfriend's suicide. I'll have to look that up and see what happened in that case. Seem like it was in Ohio.

billman6 Loc: Top of Texas

That is correct! The MSM had no values. You see it every day when they attack anyone who does not agree with them. Their perspective is they are right and everyone else is wrong. Just like all of the Dems candidates. Have you actually listened to what these people are saying? I'm mean really? Their goals, to unseat a duely elected president by any means possible. Over 90% negative coverage? Give me a break. They have made themselves look like a pack of crazed lunatics. I mean one of their latest statements was the President wants to exterminate all Mexicans. Really? Wind arrows?

acknowledgeurma

Unlike you, I love "computers and [much of] the associated technology" (but some interfaces are hellish). If I hear a song on the radio that I can't quite place, a tap of my finger will give me more information than I could imagine. If I get lost, a tap of my finger will show me where I am and how to get where I want to go. If I want to know how to do something, a few words and I can see how others have done it. If I wonder about a boy committing suicide, I just type "boy committed suicide after" and I get prompts; one "boy commits suicide after girlfriend tells him to" gives me a link with the title:
"Michelle Carter gets 15 months in texting suicide case"
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/us/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-sentencing/index.html
where I find out this happened in Massachusetts.

But I don't think your PC hatred (don't be triggered, I mean personal computer ) makes you "look more like the Unabomber"; he was/is a hermit and you like to hang out "with a group of friends". Nor does it make you "just your average garden variety Luddite". I don't see you going round smashing computers, because you think they de-skill your labor and thus lower your wages. In the comments section of:
https://calumchace.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/the-reverse-luddite-fallacy/
David Timoney wrote:
-----------------------------------------------
The Luddites did not fear that they would be replaced by weaving machines, but that the new technology would be used to de-skill their job and thus force down wages. They were motivated by the falling returns to skill rather than technophobia. In other words, the Luddite Fallacy is itself fallacious – or, more accurately, a strawman: it’s critics are many while its advocates are mythical.

The idea that technology destroys old jobs but creates new ones on a roughly equivalent basis can be proven in aggregate only at a national level. This is because much of the destruction is offshore. For example, industrialisation in 19th century Britain saw workers leave the fields for factories, but you need to remember that the simultaneous expansion of empire destroyed domestic producers in the colonies to provide a ready market for UK manufactures (e.g. the Indian textile industry was sacrificed for the benefit of Lancashire mills).

In other words, when looked at in aggregate at a global level, there is no evidence that technology substitutes new jobs for old on a 1-for-1 basis. Globalisation has had the effect of making this more obvious in the West, as jobs have moved from countries like the UK to China, but the dynamic is the same as it has always been, it’s just that the unemployment has finally been repatriated.
-----------------------------------------------
You speculated that, "Maybe [the El Paso shooter?] was just evil and acted on these selfish impulses. If he had an accomplice, and it is beginning to look like he was aided, that person is just as guilty and should be held accountable."
In an earlier post you wrote, "I don't believe that people are generally good, I believe that they act "good." I also don't believe they are generally evil. But they can also act badly." I assume "he was just evil" is shorthand for he acted badly (very very badly).
I've heard only that he "acted alone".
accomplice: a person who helps another commit a crime
What would constitute help, making it easy to get his weapon, providing encouragement, giving justification...?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

I know about technology and innovation creating more jobs. You really fail to grasp the concept or facetiousness, don't you.

Thanks for looking up Michelle Carter. I knew you would because you hate the loose end of any kinds. You passed the test. Do you have an opinion on her case? It seems as though you ask lots of questions and seldom answer any with any substance because you like to hedge your bets without committing to a position on anything so that it can't be thrown up in your face later.

There are unsubstantiated reports at this time that someone helped him get ammunition or offered some sort of material support. Again, UNSUBSTANTIATED! Whether they did or not doesn't concern me in making my judgment about the shooter. We never have perfect information on which to base a decision.
I also reserve the right to adjust my opinion accordingly as more information is gleaned. It's not carved in stone.

So, I hope you can see, I don't need one of you hackneyed lectures, such as about Luddites, on something that I already know about. I was being FACETIOUS.

acknowledgeurma

I'm not sure what you consider to be The MSM. On cable, I think of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. Since these are businesses, I assume their main (maybe only) value is to make money for their shareholders. They do this by grabbing heads and selling them to advertisers. Each of these three have found ways of grabbing particular sets of heads.
You wrote, "one of their latest statements was the President wants to exterminate all Mexicans". Can you provide a link or is this just a bit of hyperbole?
Regarding wind arrows, I enjoy using Google's English to Latin/Latin to English translator in a sort of telephone game. I enter an English phrase or sentence and get the Latin translation, then translate back to English, then back to Latin, then back to English, and so on until it stabilizes.

So, starting with:
English: you can grab them by the pussy
Latin: Gloria tibi a iaculis
English: Wind from the darts
Latin: Ventus iaculis
English: Wind arrows
Latin: Ventus perforabunt sagittis
English: Wind arrows
Latin: Ventus perforabunt sagittis
English: Wind arrows

Or another:
English: grab them by the pussy
Latin: eos iaculis Gloria
English: those targeted Glory
Latin: qui targeted Gloria
English: He targeted Glory
Latin: Et targeted Gloria
English: The targeted Glory
Latin: Gloria in targeted
English: Glory to the targeted
Latin: Gloria in targeted
English: Glory to the targeted

Or another:
English: grab them by the penis
Latin: capto per colem
English: grab through the penis
Latin: capto per ipsum colem fluit
English: grab flows through the penis
Latin: per ipsum colem fluit iaculis
English: Football flowing through the penis
Latin: Per ipsum colem fluit eu
English: In the penis, flowing football
Latin: In ipsum colem fluit eu
English: In the penis, flowing football
Latin: In ipsum colem fluit eu
English: In the penis, flowing football

OUCH!