(September 28, 2021 at 5:59 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 5:48 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I kinda think we do.

Boru

I am not talking about human tribalism, I am talking about resisting violence.

I'm not talking about tribalism, either. I'm talking about whether we kill people because we don't like them. Since it's a pretty rare occurrence that we kill people we like, I think 'In a civil society, we don't kill others because we don't like them' is untrue.

Boru

(September 28, 2021 at 6:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 5:59 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am not talking about human tribalism, I am talking about resisting violence.

I'm not talking about tribalism, either. I'm talking about whether we kill people because we don't like them. Since it's a pretty rare occurrence that we kill people we like, I think 'In a civil society, we don't kill others because we don't like them' is untrue.

Boru

Don't like, or don't care? I think it's more of the latter.

(September 28, 2021 at 6:53 am)brewer Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 6:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm not talking about tribalism, either. I'm talking about whether we kill people because we don't like them. Since it's a pretty rare occurrence that we kill people we like, I think 'In a civil society, we don't kill others because we don't like them' is untrue.

Boru

Don't like, or don't care? I think it's more of the latter.

Same thing. If you don’t care about someone, you don’t like them. If you dislike someone, you don’t care about them.

Boru

(September 28, 2021 at 7:28 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 6:53 am)brewer Wrote: Don't like, or don't care? I think it's more of the latter.

Same thing. If you don’t care about someone, you don’t like them. If you dislike someone, you don’t care about them.

Boru

Not the same. If I don't care then I don't consider them. Never gets to the point of like or dislike.

OK, back to making opiates for the masses.

(September 27, 2021 at 5:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:  Punishment would be putting them in with violent sane prisoners in a regular prison. Containing the mentally ill that have gotten violent isn't saying they are like the sane. But it also does not mean they are safe in society either. 

Don't confuse punishment with containment. If you want to argue Hinkley and Yates are mentally ill, I am with you. Nobody should argue they deserve the needle or gas chamber or waterboarding. But they are still a danger to society. 

Bundy and Dahmer are/were not mentally ill. Hinkley and Yates should not get out. Not because they knew what they were doing, but because they are a danger to public safety. They should not be punished or abused at all. But that does not make them safe for the public.

Hinkley is not a danger to the public. I'm not sure how you can say he is, unless you happen to be a psychiatrist who examined him and made that determination and others did not listen to you, but I strongly suspect that not to be the case. Because his actual doctors have said that his mental illness is and has been in complete remission for 30 years. 

Just because Hinkley at one time was a danger to the public, does not mean he is now. Either we believe in rehabilitation, or we don't And if you don't, then you have no fucking business in commenting on the matter.

The problem with mental defect defense is it is predicated not on fact or anything quantifiable but someone's OPINION.

Even a professional opinion is just an opinion.- and this opinion (That Hinkley is no longer a threat) is offered with no possible reprisal against the giver of this opinion.


If a structural engineer offers his opinion that an earthquake damaged building is safe - he can be held liable if it later collapses and kills someone.

Are the doctors who certify Hinkley going to be held liable if he kills again? Are they willing to share a cell with him?

We have to rely on the advice of the experts on some things.

If the doctors who have worked with Hinkley for years feel that he is no longer a threat that's what we have to work with.

If a person has a mental illness or suffers a psychotic break, do we really have the right or obligation to lock them up forever, just in case?

Any one of us can have a breakdown at any time that isn't predicted by anyone. Perhaps we should just lock everyone up...just in case.

(September 28, 2021 at 10:05 am)arewethereyet Wrote: We have to rely on the advice of the experts on some things.

If the doctors who have worked with Hinkley for years feel that he is no longer a threat that's what we have to work with.

If a person has a mental illness or suffers a psychotic break, do we really have the right or obligation to lock them up forever, just in case?

Any one of us can have a breakdown at any time that isn't predicted by anyone.  Perhaps we should just lock everyone up...just in case.

Have a breakdown - no problem...

Shoot a bunch of people? I thought we kind of decided that was a bad thing....

Ahhhh. - BLAME THE GUNS!

The gun MADE him do it!


Now I see the " logic"...

Oh fuck off Biker.

Do you really WANT a world free of responsibility?


If Hinkley goes off his nut again and decides to shoot more people - you' re OK with that?

He' s just defective - so bad behavior is accepted?