One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: acknowledgeurma
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 77 next>>
Aug 14, 2019 19:46:06   #
dtucker300 wrote:
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 h**e 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 wh**ever 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.
Thank you for your response. An interesting backg... (show quote)

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-sk**l 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-sk**l their job and thus force down wages. They were motivated by the falling returns to sk**l 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...?
Go to
Aug 13, 2019 01:07:23   #
[quote=dtucker300]
acknowledgeurma wrote:
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 k**led 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 k**l Mexicans, none of this would have happened? Oh, wait, Trump didn't tell him to k**l 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 k**l 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?
From: br https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi... (show quote)

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 s***e 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 s***e of the passions". A question occurs; what are passions s***e 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 A******l 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.
Go to
Aug 12, 2019 00:49:44   #
dtucker300 wrote:
What are the ideologies that could be considered a Mental Illness? Islam? White Nationalism? R****m? C*******m? 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.

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 k**l other people). But ideology can get "good" people to k**l other people.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 22:02:20   #
billman6 wrote:
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.

I suppose it depends upon one's values, perspective, and goals. Wind arrows.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 20:56:55   #
dtucker300 wrote:
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 h**e Americas, or who strap on a suicide bomb? Yes, I agree it's a true oxymoron.

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.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 20:04:09   #
dtucker300 wrote:
Is mental illness the cause of shootings as President Trump stated?

If devotion to certain ideologies can be considered a mental illness then yes.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 00:08:33   #
dtucker300 wrote:
Alright, we got off to a bad start. Let us clear the air and wipe the slate clean.

I didn't call the shooter a "Pathetic Little Coward." I think it was Kankune who said that. I'm not going to dig through the entire thread to see who said what. I'll take your word for it:
This bit of the thread started when I asked kankune,
"Why is [the El Paso shooter] a "pathetic little coward"?"
kankune never answered, but Peewee replied,
"Because he had a gun and k**led unarmed innocent people who never harmed him, might be your first clue."
To which I asked,
"So is anyone who k**ls "unarmed innocent people who never harmed [them]" a "pathetic little coward"?"
Peewee replied,
"Unless it's self-defense or war, I would say yes, size doesn't matter."
I asked, "So no one who k**ls "unarmed innocent people who never harmed [them]" in war is a "pathetic little coward"?"
You (dtucker300) replied,
"War is self-defense."
I asked,
"So the Germans bombing London was self-defense."
You replied,
"Don't be ridiculous. In their opinion it was."
I asked,
"So are you a moral relativist?"
You replied,
"No. If I was a moral relativist I would have said we were justified and they were not."


Let's say that the phrase "Pathetic Little Coward" was used as a figure of speech, a hyperbole. But Why?

I would add that he is Pathetic Little Coward because he is a r****t. R****m is a mental illness in my opinion. (Another funny thing about "race" is that there is no such thing. Two-hundred years ago some i***t examined skulls from different areas of the world and found the cranial capacity to vary. This implied to him that some had larger brains, and thus were more intelligent, while the smaller skull represented less intelligence. The largest skull came from the Caucasus Mountains and this led to calling white people Caucasian. The whole thing is a discredited idea, not even a theory.)

R****m is also something that is learned. Nevertheless, he let his r****m control his actions. Anyone with a rational iota of thought can understand that r****m is unjustified, wouldn't you agree? People are blaming Trump for "telling him to k**l Mexicans" (I don't remember the exact wording they may have used but the Democratic P**********l Candidates jumped immediately onto the campaign trail to drive that point home. They capitalized on a horrific incident to gain political points). Even assuming the shooter was schizophrenic, hearing voices, or interpreted Trump words as an order to go out and k**l these people, he is still insane. There are millions of insane people in this country and they didn't pick up a gun to k**l people. And the gun didn't do it by itself.

He is Pathetic because he has lived with this condition and no one recognized that the problems he has are more severe than anyone previously thought. Perhaps, they just didn't care or they were too busy with their own lives to have noticed something was really wrong. I don't think this is so because his own mother asked questions of the local police about his gun purchase and such. But no one raised an alarm. That is pathetic. Also, what he has done to his family is pathetic and something they have to live with, wondering how they missed the signs or perhaps feeling guilty about not getting him the help he needed.
On the one hand, I feel compassion for him, and at the same time contempt for what he has done. All these lives and potential for the future lost. For what? That is textbook pathos.

He k**led unarmed men, women, and children, another sign of mental illness. You have to be crazy to unjustly k**l another human, wouldn't you agree? No sane person would k**l just for the sport of it, be goaded on by fantasy, or told to k**l unless they were, at a minimum, sociopathic, or psychopathic.

He is Little because his life is essentially over. He experienced brief adulthood, maybe none at all. He had a little mind. He had no vision for his future other than to do this horrendous thing he did.

He is a Coward most of all because again he targeted Mexicans; unarmed men, women, and children. He chose to travel where he knew he would find an abundance of targets, in a gun-free zone, essentially assured that there would be no one to stop him, fight back, or k**l him. He immediately dropped his weapon(s) in order to be apprehended by the police and not shot. He couldn't stand the pain. He was a coward because he was afraid of Mexicans. He was afraid of them coming across the border in large numbers. He drove 900 miles away from his town to do this deed right at the border. If he wasn't a coward, he might have decided to go after the Mexican Federal Police at the border, going up against armed officers with enough training that he surely would have been k**led almost immediately, just as the Ohio shooter was.

At this point would you agree that the shooter was a pathetic little coward, as opposed to, say, a Brave Bully?

To be continued if you wish to do so. That's all I can write tonight. It's late.
Alright, we got off to a bad start. Let us clear ... (show quote)

Very good! This was an excellent explanation of the appropriateness of calling the El Paso shooter a pathetic little coward. You have removed the oxymoron by treating it not as one concept, but three. He is pathetic; he is little; he is a coward. Thank you.

P.S., Brave Bully seems a true oxymoron, immune to your magic.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 21:18:30   #
dtucker300 wrote:
There now, you answered your own question. That wasn't so hard, was it.

I don't question my ability to mount ad hominem attacks either. And I refrain from doing so when answers are self-evident. That is until the responder decides to play games. That is why I question your sincerity, based on many of your previous questions and responses to not only myself but also others.

The question was asked and answered. Do you have trouble reading between the lines as well as understanding what is clearly stated? The El Paso shooter was a pathetic little coward, as are most cowards because he targeted people in a gun-free zone where there was virtually no chance of anyone fighting back.

Why don't you tell us what you think a pathetic little coward is, or is not, and stop wasting people's time? You've danced around every topic without ever offering any real information or solutions to about what you think. Then again, maybe no ones care what you think. You've been on this site long enough that I doubt you are a troll. I believe you sincerely think you are adding to the conversation.

So tell us, what is the shooter in El Paso? Is he a pathetic little coward, r****t, mentally deranged, a thrill-seeker, race war instigator, misunderstood person suffering from arrested development, sociopath, psychopath, etc., etc.?
There now, you answered your own question. That w... (show quote)

But I didn't answer my own question. You made a statement about what a moral relativist would say. I didn't understand how a moral relativist would come to say that. I requested clarification. (Is a request for clarification a question?) I understood you to imply that I couldn't understand the meanings of the words moral relativist. I thought, maybe you're right; so I googled a definition. That definition led me to a different conclusion for what a moral relativist would say.

You say I've answered my question. Are you thus, admitting to being wrong about what a moral relativist would say? No, of course you will admit no such thing, for you are really only trying to avoid the consequences of running onto this game trail that began with the over broad statement: anyone who k**ls unarmed innocent people who never harmed them is a pathetic little coward.

You asked me, "Why don't you tell us what you think a pathetic little coward is, or is not, and stop wasting people's time?"
Why don't I tell you? Well no one ever asked before, but since you asked so nicely...
(Oh no, he's released the Pedantosaurus)...

Let us begin:
pathetic: arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness
pity: the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others
little: small in size, amount, or degree (often used to convey an appealing diminutiveness or express an affectionate or condescending attitude)
coward: a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things
courage: mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty

Putting it all together, pathetic little coward:
a person (thought of with either affection or condescension) lacking the mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty, whose suffering and misfortunes arouses the feeling of sorrow and compassion

This seems a bit of an oxymoron. Who ever feels compassion for a coward? It could be that the meaning of or attitude toward some of these words has changed. Perhaps some have come to feel sorrow for cowards; perhaps some have come to have contempt for feelings of compassion.

You say, I've danced around every topic without ever offering any real information. And yet you have replied to a post of mine, "Not at all and you make a good point." Were you dissembling?

You say, "You've been on this site long enough that I doubt you are a troll."
Perhaps I am a patient fisher trailing a line into the OPP waters? (OPP can o' bees swamp)

So what is the El Paso shooter? I think it is a difficult thing to k**l another person. It goes against most all of our early childhood training. It takes special training to overcome. So did he not get the proper childhood training? Was there something training in his environment that overcame the early training? Maybe he's insane.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 03:57:55   #
dtucker300 wrote:
Moral relativism, not amoral relativism. Think about what each word means. They have dictionaries if you have problems understanding.

Sorry, I left out the space between a and m.

This bit of the thread started when I asked kankune,
"Why is [the El Paso shooter] a "pathetic little coward"?"
kankune never answered, but Peewee replied,
"Because he had a gun and k**led unarmed innocent people who never harmed him, might be your first clue."
To which I asked,
"So is anyone who k**ls "unarmed innocent people who never harmed [them]" a "pathetic little coward"?"
Peewee replied,
"Unless it's self-defense or war, I would say yes, size doesn't matter."
I asked, "So no one who k**ls "unarmed innocent people who never harmed [them]" in war is a "pathetic little coward"?"
You (dtucker300) replied,
"War is self-defense."
I asked,
"So the Germans bombing London was self-defense."
You replied,
"Don't be ridiculous. In their opinion it was."
I asked,
"So are you a moral relativist?"
You replied,
"No. If I was a moral relativist I would have said we were justified and they were not."

You also wrote,
"Go away and annoy someone else. Socrates, you are not! Let's just say I question your sincerity.
If I was a Moral Relativist I would have said we were right and they were wrong."

I asked you to clarify the logic (but I made a typing error: "amoral" instead of "a moral").
Then you wrote,
"Moral relativism, not amoral relativism. Think about what each word means. They have dictionaries if you have problems understanding."

Realizing I was not going to get an answer from you, I found (with some trepidation that I be deemed pedantic):
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

Wouldn't a moral relativist say (assuming they even couched things in terms of right and wrong), "We are right and they are right"?

But to get back to my original question to kankune, why is [the El Paso shooter] a "pathetic little coward"?
An answer might have been: "I think pathetic little cowards are the worst people, and the shooter is one of the worst people."
Or, "The shooter is a vulnerable child deserving pity because he lacked the heart to let people he feared live."

Regarding, "Go away and annoy someone else. Socrates, you are not! Let's just say I question your sincerity."
Of course I'm not Socrates. He was (is) the hero of oligarchs. I prefer democracy.
You question my sincerity. Interesting. I don't question your ability to mount ad hominem attacks.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 01:23:14   #
dtucker300 wrote:
Go away and annoy someone else. Socrates, you are not! Let's just say I question your sincerity.

If I was a Moral Relativist I would have said we were right and they were wrong.

Why would I want to go away?

I don't understand your logic. How is it that a moral relativist would say, "we were right and they were wrong"? Really, I don't understand your logic there. Could you clarify please.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 01:07:54   #
Peewee wrote:
Say what you want to say? Or go away? You've started to repeat yourself without saying anything. Hard to debate if you won't open up and stop being coy.

I didn't know we were in a debate. I was just wondering what it takes to make someone a "pathetic little coward"?
Go to
Aug 9, 2019 23:34:51   #
dtucker300 wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. In their opinion it was.

So are you a moral relativist?
Go to
Aug 9, 2019 22:31:53   #
dtucker300 wrote:
War is self-defense. So what do you think?

So the Germans bombing London was self-defense.
Go to
Aug 9, 2019 22:09:07   #
Peewee wrote:
Unless it's self-defense or war, I would say yes, size doesn't matter. Now you can blast away. Fire when ready.

So no one who k**ls "unarmed innocent people who never harmed [them]" in war is a "pathetic little coward"?
Go to
Aug 9, 2019 18:35:10   #
Peewee wrote:
Because he had a gun and k**led unarmed innocent people who never harmed him, might be your first clue.

So is anyone who k**ls "unarmed innocent people who never harmed [them]" a "pathetic little coward"?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 77 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.