Three more executed

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Three more executed

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Feb 15 9.16am
Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.52pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Feb 2015 4.40pm That's the point though, mental illness is a free pass, in a manner of speaking, for murder - we even created laws that cover diminished responsibility. But if we face the truth, that in fact most of these problems in the US relates to mental health and social problems (such as poverty), then the onis is with the state to actually address those problems. Which is why the 'terrorist', 'culture of violence', 'evils of gangs, drugs' etc are all so popular, they are things we 'can do something about' without having to actually resort to massive social changes, in which we have to accept the consequences of things like welfare responsibility etc. The absurdity is that the reaction to the problem is to typically take people and put them into even more violent, stressful and disturbing environments, and then eventually release them back into society and expect them to have improved. We're all delusional, some of us just are delusion in more or less the same way, and call it normal. I agree but not all mental illness is treated equally. That's a consequence of it intentionally being fashioned into narratives that are presented to us through politics and media. There is no motivation to help people, especially when some tragic outcomes are useful in keeping the population scared and under control (as you say drug gangs, terror etc). If anything you could argue that instead of helping people, certain demographics are nudged towards conditions that make it more likely that they will experience mental illness. Much like your inside stressful environments point, but existing on the outside too. Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.58pm) I think the latter part occurs largely because our 'default defense mechanism' is to sublimate our own unhappiness onto others. It 'empowers us' to disempower others. That's why rather than feel sympathetic for the unemployed, and feel good because we aren't unemployed, we demonise them and demand 'further punishment and restrictions upon them' - because ultimately we feel better, albeit briefly, knowing that others are more miserable than us. Culturally we are pathological in this to the point of 'self harm' (in so much as we'd harm our own prospects to 'hold others down'). A lot of socialists of old saw this as a deliberate conspiracy of capital, but I think it stems from a more culturally driven unconscious need, and has its origins in Protestantism and its influence on capitalism (the Protestant Work Ethic etc). Its a form of self flagilation, the idea that suffering is somehow good in its own right for people, and I think we seek out opportunities to create acceptable forms of 'flagellation and suffering'. My view is mental illness is only regarded as being 'a sickness' when it affects a minority, rather than a majority, but in reality society itself is a schizophrenic existence, a psychotic break from reality. We literally have come to believe that the world around us, and in which we live is real (rather than a construct), and that hyperreal concepts and ideas have become truths. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Feb 15 9.16am

Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.52pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Feb 2015 4.40pm

That's the point though, mental illness is a free pass, in a manner of speaking, for murder - we even created laws that cover diminished responsibility. But if we face the truth, that in fact most of these problems in the US relates to mental health and social problems (such as poverty), then the onis is with the state to actually address those problems.

Which is why the 'terrorist', 'culture of violence', 'evils of gangs, drugs' etc are all so popular, they are things we 'can do something about' without having to actually resort to massive social changes, in which we have to accept the consequences of things like welfare responsibility etc.

The absurdity is that the reaction to the problem is to typically take people and put them into even more violent, stressful and disturbing environments, and then eventually release them back into society and expect them to have improved.

We're all delusional, some of us just are delusion in more or less the same way, and call it normal.

I agree but not all mental illness is treated equally. That's a consequence of it intentionally being fashioned into narratives that are presented to us through politics and media. There is no motivation to help people, especially when some tragic outcomes are useful in keeping the population scared and under control (as you say drug gangs, terror etc).

If anything you could argue that instead of helping people, certain demographics are nudged towards conditions that make it more likely that they will experience mental illness. Much like your inside stressful environments point, but existing on the outside too.

Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.58pm)

I think the latter part occurs largely because our 'default defense mechanism' is to sublimate our own unhappiness onto others. It 'empowers us' to disempower others. That's why rather than feel sympathetic for the unemployed, and feel good because we aren't unemployed, we demonise them and demand 'further punishment and restrictions upon them' - because ultimately we feel better, albeit briefly, knowing that others are more miserable than us.

Culturally we are pathological in this to the point of 'self harm' (in so much as we'd harm our own prospects to 'hold others down'). A lot of socialists of old saw this as a deliberate conspiracy of capital, but I think it stems from a more culturally driven unconscious need, and has its origins in Protestantism and its influence on capitalism (the Protestant Work Ethic etc). Its a form of self flagilation, the idea that suffering is somehow good in its own right for people, and I think we seek out opportunities to create acceptable forms of 'flagellation and suffering'.

My view is mental illness is only regarded as being 'a sickness' when it affects a minority, rather than a majority, but in reality society itself is a schizophrenic existence, a psychotic break from reality.

We literally have come to believe that the world around us, and in which we live is real (rather than a construct), and that hyperreal concepts and ideas have become truths.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 13 Feb 15 12.58pm
Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.56pm Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 4.45pm Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.40pm Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 4.37pm Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.18pm Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 4.01pm Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 3.53pm Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 3.46pm Quote Kermit8 at 12 Feb 2015 1.49pm Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 1.01pm Quote Kermit8 at 12 Feb 2015 7.33am Let's hope he suffers [Link] Oh dear kerm, that’s low even for you my lefty peace crisp eating friend. Sensationalistic Journalism aside, quite clearly the guy had mental health issues, which begs the more pertinent question, why was a known nutbag allowed to carry a licensed firearm. This is not what your post infers, some form of white on Muslim massacre that should be judged in the same way as someone from ISIS lopping of a journalists head. In this case it is my belief the race,, or religion of those sadly murdered is immaterial. And if the reverse had happened? Ali Akbar Mohammed killing three young white students. Would you still be sure it was about parking? If he was mentally ill then yes of course, what a silly question. If however Mr Mohammed went into a shopping centre with a semtex and ball bearing overcoat and turned himself and a number of innocent shoppers into red mist, or indeed if Mr Right Wing Nutter did the same, then that is clearly about religion or race. This incident was not about either, it was about a mentally Ill mans obsession with what he considered his right, and the fact that the country he lives in allowes him, in that mental state to carry a loaded gun. Nothing more, no matter how you or the press try to portray it. So if someone is mentally ill, parking can still be given as a reason for why they did it, but religion cannot? How random. Five seconds after this has happened and armed with next to no facts you are apparently completely certain as to why this occurred. Of course that's a nonsense. As such all that we can read into your certainty is that you're basing it in part on who the killer and victims are. Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 3.55pm) If you are mentally ill then I would imagine "the pixes made me do it" is just as valid a reason to the person comitting murder as anything else than comes out of thier troubled mind. My point is that the guy was a self confessed Athiest so by definition he wasn't religious, so the reason given that it was about parking seems more likley on balance than that of a religious motivated murder. But hey whatever, why let a bit of common sense over rule a good bit of reverse islamic religious bigotry. And for your information my opinions for thats what they are, are made from reading the entire article and then googling it to see what else I could find. Maybe you should do the same before you get all righteous. Why does someone being an atheist mean that they are not motivated to fear or harm Muslims?There are an awful lot of hate crimes against Muslims and it's not like they're all perpetrated by devout Christians. This man expressed hatred towards religion online. Sure, that doesn't mean that this was the reason he committed this crime, or that it even factored in, but it is what it is. We don't need to remove nuance and proclaim that there is absolutely nothing to this when we don't know that. Mental illness isn't a free pass. It doesn't mean there is no motivation to actions carried out. You've decided conclusively that there is no motivate based on very little. Well actually you said it was parking, then backtracked when I declared that if that can be motivation so can religion. I don't even like religion by the way. It's nonsensical. I don't like glaring partiality either though. Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.20pm) Becuase if you do not believe in something how can you possibley be fearfull of it ? That's silly. People can perfectly well be scared of the actions of those within a particular religion. In fact we know this to be the case from our own society. Nobody is saying that atheists are scared of a God. Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.41pm) You are saying that the killer was motivated by religion, not the people that follow it,but religion itself, my point is that if you don't believe in something the threat it poses is insignificant. For example I do not believe in atrology or any of that bollicks, so if I read in my stars that I am going to drop down dead, I couldn't give a fcuk, as to me it's all mumbo jumbo. However someone who belives in that stuff might not go out the house all day. Do you see my point ? I haven't said that at all I'm afraid. I'm pointed out that atheists are capable of being hateful and hostile towards religious people too. It's not a one way street. Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 6.00pm) If you take the threads on this board, the hostility and hatred flows way more towards the religious, than from them. PS Sorry about the multi quote My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 13 Feb 15 12.58pm

Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.56pm

Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 4.45pm

Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.40pm

Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 4.37pm

Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.18pm

Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 4.01pm

Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 3.53pm

Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 3.46pm

Quote Kermit8 at 12 Feb 2015 1.49pm

Quote dannyh at 12 Feb 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 12 Feb 2015 7.33am

Let's hope he suffers

[Link]

Oh dear kerm, that’s low even for you my lefty peace crisp eating friend.

Sensationalistic Journalism aside, quite clearly the guy had mental health issues, which begs the more pertinent question, why was a known nutbag allowed to carry a licensed firearm.

This is not what your post infers, some form of white on Muslim massacre that should be judged in the same way as someone from ISIS lopping of a journalists head. In this case it is my belief the race,, or religion of those sadly murdered is immaterial.

And if the reverse had happened? Ali Akbar Mohammed killing three young white students. Would you still be sure it was about parking?

If he was mentally ill then yes of course, what a silly question.

If however Mr Mohammed went into a shopping centre with a semtex and ball bearing overcoat and turned himself and a number of innocent shoppers into red mist, or indeed if Mr Right Wing Nutter did the same, then that is clearly about religion or race.

This incident was not about either, it was about a mentally Ill mans obsession with what he considered his right, and the fact that the country he lives in allowes him, in that mental state to carry a loaded gun.

Nothing more, no matter how you or the press try to portray it.

So if someone is mentally ill, parking can still be given as a reason for why they did it, but religion cannot? How random.

Five seconds after this has happened and armed with next to no facts you are apparently completely certain as to why this occurred. Of course that's a nonsense. As such all that we can read into your certainty is that you're basing it in part on who the killer and victims are.

Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 3.55pm)

If you are mentally ill then I would imagine "the pixes made me do it" is just as valid a reason to the person comitting murder as anything else than comes out of thier troubled mind.

My point is that the guy was a self confessed Athiest so by definition he wasn't religious, so the reason given that it was about parking seems more likley on balance than that of a religious motivated murder.

But hey whatever, why let a bit of common sense over rule a good bit of reverse islamic religious bigotry.

And for your information my opinions for thats what they are, are made from reading the entire article and then googling it to see what else I could find. Maybe you should do the same before you get all righteous.

Why does someone being an atheist mean that they are not motivated to fear or harm Muslims?There are an awful lot of hate crimes against Muslims and it's not like they're all perpetrated by devout Christians. This man expressed hatred towards religion online. Sure, that doesn't mean that this was the reason he committed this crime, or that it even factored in, but it is what it is. We don't need to remove nuance and proclaim that there is absolutely nothing to this when we don't know that.

Mental illness isn't a free pass. It doesn't mean there is no motivation to actions carried out. You've decided conclusively that there is no motivate based on very little. Well actually you said it was parking, then backtracked when I declared that if that can be motivation so can religion. I don't even like religion by the way. It's nonsensical. I don't like glaring partiality either though.

Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.20pm)

Becuase if you do not believe in something how can you possibley be fearfull of it ?

That's silly. People can perfectly well be scared of the actions of those within a particular religion. In fact we know this to be the case from our own society. Nobody is saying that atheists are scared of a God.

Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.41pm)

You are saying that the killer was motivated by religion, not the people that follow it,but religion itself, my point is that if you don't believe in something the threat it poses is insignificant. For example I do not believe in atrology or any of that bollicks, so if I read in my stars that I am going to drop down dead, I couldn't give a fcuk, as to me it's all mumbo jumbo. However someone who belives in that stuff might not go out the house all day.

Do you see my point ?

I haven't said that at all I'm afraid. I'm pointed out that atheists are capable of being hateful and hostile towards religious people too. It's not a one way street.

Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 6.00pm)

If you take the threads on this board, the hostility and hatred flows way more towards the religious, than from them.

PS Sorry about the multi quote

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 14 Feb 15 7.06am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Feb 2015 9.16am Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.52pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Feb 2015 4.40pm That's the point though, mental illness is a free pass, in a manner of speaking, for murder - we even created laws that cover diminished responsibility. But if we face the truth, that in fact most of these problems in the US relates to mental health and social problems (such as poverty), then the onis is with the state to actually address those problems. Which is why the 'terrorist', 'culture of violence', 'evils of gangs, drugs' etc are all so popular, they are things we 'can do something about' without having to actually resort to massive social changes, in which we have to accept the consequences of things like welfare responsibility etc. The absurdity is that the reaction to the problem is to typically take people and put them into even more violent, stressful and disturbing environments, and then eventually release them back into society and expect them to have improved. We're all delusional, some of us just are delusion in more or less the same way, and call it normal. I agree but not all mental illness is treated equally. That's a consequence of it intentionally being fashioned into narratives that are presented to us through politics and media. There is no motivation to help people, especially when some tragic outcomes are useful in keeping the population scared and under control (as you say drug gangs, terror etc). If anything you could argue that instead of helping people, certain demographics are nudged towards conditions that make it more likely that they will experience mental illness. Much like your inside stressful environments point, but existing on the outside too. Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.58pm) I think the latter part occurs largely because our 'default defense mechanism' is to sublimate our own unhappiness onto others. It 'empowers us' to disempower others. That's why rather than feel sympathetic for the unemployed, and feel good because we aren't unemployed, we demonise them and demand 'further punishment and restrictions upon them' - because ultimately we feel better, albeit briefly, knowing that others are more miserable than us. Culturally we are pathological in this to the point of 'self harm' (in so much as we'd harm our own prospects to 'hold others down'). A lot of socialists of old saw this as a deliberate conspiracy of capital, but I think it stems from a more culturally driven unconscious need, and has its origins in Protestantism and its influence on capitalism (the Protestant Work Ethic etc). Its a form of self flagilation, the idea that suffering is somehow good in its own right for people, and I think we seek out opportunities to create acceptable forms of 'flagellation and suffering'. My view is mental illness is only regarded as being 'a sickness' when it affects a minority, rather than a majority, but in reality society itself is a schizophrenic existence, a psychotic break from reality. We literally have come to believe that the world around us, and in which we live is real (rather than a construct), and that hyperreal concepts and ideas have become truths. Astute observations. It's difficult to prise ourselves away our own cultural perspective because as arbitrary as it is, it's burned into us since day one. At least some people try to open their eyes to the underpinnings of it all though. Your disempowerment point too is dead on. Who do people finger point at any given moment? The very easiest to attack, because they can't touch those 'above' who couldn't give a s*** what you think about them. It's a Jeremy Kyle watching 'at least I'm not that person' mentality. If marginalisation was replaced with understanding, people would be forced to examine their own very real failings instead.
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 14 Feb 15 7.06am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Feb 2015 9.16am

Quote imbored at 12 Feb 2015 4.52pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Feb 2015 4.40pm

We're all delusional, some of us just are delusion in more or less the same way, and call it normal.

Edited by imbored (12 Feb 2015 4.58pm)

We literally have come to believe that the world around us, and in which we live is real (rather than a construct), and that hyperreal concepts and ideas have become truths.

Astute observations. It's difficult to prise ourselves away our own cultural perspective because as arbitrary as it is, it's burned into us since day one. At least some people try to open their eyes to the underpinnings of it all though.

Your disempowerment point too is dead on. Who do people finger point at any given moment? The very easiest to attack, because they can't touch those 'above' who couldn't give a s*** what you think about them. It's a Jeremy Kyle watching 'at least I'm not that person' mentality. If marginalisation was replaced with understanding, people would be forced to examine their own very real failings instead.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Feb 15 3.54pm
Quote imbored at 14 Feb 2015 7.06am Astute observations. It's difficult to prise ourselves away our own cultural perspective because as arbitrary as it is, it's burned into us since day one. At least some people try to open their eyes to the underpinnings of it all though. Kind of, but I don't see culture as ebbing something that exists in us as a constant, but a shifting sequence of subjective ideas we have about ourselves and our social world that is in continual flux. Culture isn't a thing we share so much as we create continually through our interactions on a social level and relate to subjectively. The dominant ideas of culture tend to be those either expressed disproportionately (such as through the media) or that exist as more popular discourses in society. We then tend to ascribe these as true or right, rather than influential or popular. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Feb 15 3.54pm

Quote imbored at 14 Feb 2015 7.06am
Astute observations. It's difficult to prise ourselves away our own cultural perspective because as arbitrary as it is, it's burned into us since day one. At least some people try to open their eyes to the underpinnings of it all though.

Kind of, but I don't see culture as ebbing something that exists in us as a constant, but a shifting sequence of subjective ideas we have about ourselves and our social world that is in continual flux.

Culture isn't a thing we share so much as we create continually through our interactions on a social level and relate to subjectively. The dominant ideas of culture tend to be those either expressed disproportionately (such as through the media) or that exist as more popular discourses in society.

We then tend to ascribe these as true or right, rather than influential or popular.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 14 Feb 15 4.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Feb 2015 3.54pm Quote imbored at 14 Feb 2015 7.06am Astute observations. It's difficult to prise ourselves away our own cultural perspective because as arbitrary as it is, it's burned into us since day one. At least some people try to open their eyes to the underpinnings of it all though. Kind of, but I don't see culture as ebbing something that exists in us as a constant, but a shifting sequence of subjective ideas we have about ourselves and our social world that is in continual flux. Culture isn't a thing we share so much as we create continually through our interactions on a social level and relate to subjectively. The dominant ideas of culture tend to be those either expressed disproportionately (such as through the media) or that exist as more popular discourses in society. We then tend to ascribe these as true or right, rather than influential or popular. I suppose I see it more as a feedback loop, of shared experiences and pushed narratives that largely dictate behaviour in predictable ways. We see these ideas reflected back at us during our interactions with others which sustains them until we are given sufficient reason to believe something different. I certainly agree though that people replace 'popular' with 'right'. It's an unhealthy position because over time inevitably the landscape shifts. You see people struggling to adapt because their 'truth' is being chipped away at in ways they find distressing. Edited by imbored (14 Feb 2015 4.07pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 14 Feb 15 4.06pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Feb 2015 3.54pm

We then tend to ascribe these as true or right, rather than influential or popular.

I suppose I see it more as a feedback loop, of shared experiences and pushed narratives that largely dictate behaviour in predictable ways. We see these ideas reflected back at us during our interactions with others which sustains them until we are given sufficient reason to believe something different.

I certainly agree though that people replace 'popular' with 'right'. It's an unhealthy position because over time inevitably the landscape shifts. You see people struggling to adapt because their 'truth' is being chipped away at in ways they find distressing.

Edited by imbored (14 Feb 2015 4.07pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Three more executed

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors