Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
DO THE MENTALLY ILL MURDER OR JUST KILL?


Is it illogical to posit that anyone who mass murders is mentally ill by definition? If not, all mass murders were committed by the "mentally ill." If all mass murders were committed by the "mentally ill," then what do guns (or cars, or knives, or bombs for that matter) have to do with it?
 
COROLLARY: Is it possible for a "normal" person -- one not "mentally ill" -- to mass murder? If it is not possible for a "normal" person to mass murder, then the general population -- being "normal" by definition -- is generally safe. But, if it IS possible for a "normal" person to mass murder, then the general population is not safe.
 
If the general population is not safe -- because even a "normal" person can mass murder -- then the only solution is to arm the entire population OR disarm the entire population. If one opts for the later, then standing armies should also be disarmed for these organizations are replete with "normal" people. If one opts for the former, then the Militia System advised by the Founders would have to be re-established.
 
If however mass murder is considered an absolute "sin" then again anyone who does it could be considered mentally ill by definition. If mass murder is situational one who avoids it in “war” is considered a “coward“ or “traitor.”
 
So if you murder during time of "peace" you are a sinner or mentally ill however if you murder during a time of "war" you are a hero and sane.
 
* * *
 
I once brought this up with a devout Christian Bible teacher who also happened to be a lawyer. He went bonkers. He "justified" mass murder by saying that the people we kill in "wars" are not “murders” but “killings” and they are justified because we are fighting a "just war." Apparently, a “just war” is a war that the Deity of either side approves of.
 
I also ran this by a Constitutional attorney and he insisted on the same "company line" -- wars are just killings, not murders. So the fact is the people that work for governments -- lawyers, esquires, etc. -- have everything neatly "justified" so they can absolve themselves from any of the guilt associated with situational conflict.
 
In essence, we are told that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights -- rights granted by the Deity which cannot be taken away, alienated -- yet any (rogue) government can take them away by ordering its peasants to "go fight a just war" whereby their murders are deemed mere "killings." So even though the Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not kill," governments, in order to optimize their survival potential have engineered a “legal” pathway right through the morality of both the Church and the Deity itself. So much for inalienable rights and the Ten Commandments.
 
Check out the new script for GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS – How the Second Amendment Can Stop Mass Shootings. We deal some sticky issues society, and even historians, have been avoiding and perverting for centuries. Like this one: is a “normal” person on SSRI antidepressant drugs mentally ill? What about a “mentally ill” person who is on antidepressants? Is he now “normal”? All these issues must be sorted out before we will be able to stop mass shootings, especially shootings of our children in Government-infested schools that have removed ethics, morals, values, prayer and the Church from the curriculum.
 


Last edited by James Jaeger, 4/8/2018, 10:05 am
3/22/2018, 4:09 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
MIND-X NAZIS CENSOR AGAIN


The Censor Nazis didn't let this on on the MIND-X for more than a half hour even though it's a serious question about the mind. Guess the pussies at the MIND-X do not really want to talk about mental phenomenon as they don't have the stomach for it.

This is why it is impossible for any of them to be on the track of the Singularity.

Only thoughts that have never been thought about intelligence, or thoughts that are totally alien, are thoughts appealing new layers of the onion of discovery. This is why restricting language is cutting their own throats.

 

 
3/22/2018, 11:23 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Techtoy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: ARE MASS MURDERERS MENTALLY ILL OR NORMAL?


Defining normal plays a major role in answering your question. Pyschological health is fluid. Many normal behaviours are harmful to others. Excessive violence towards others is abnormal statistically. For an individual motive. It is irrational over reaction to stress and anxiety. A power grab.
4/5/2018, 9:30 pm Link to this post PM Techtoy Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: ARE MASS MURDERERS MENTALLY ILL OR NORMAL?


First, allow me to commend you for putting this in the Netherworld subforum. This is a topic that belongs here. As such, it actually did not belong on Mind-X, since they did not have a Netherworld subforum. Their sin was not prudishness, but uniformity. Nevertheless, this is the kind of question that mature futurists and students of the human condition should address.

The question of sanity must always relate to objectives. If a society existed where the only way to secure resources and/or mates was through mass murder, such behavior might be considered normal and even healthy. I am not sure that such a society has ever actually existed. For a variety of economic reasons it seems improbable.

However, this gets to the question of objectives. If it is assumed that the only valid objectives are the securing of resources or mates the answer is reasonably straightforward. However, there are many people who would make the personal decision that securing these things is not worth the sacrifice, real or imagined, of one's personal values. Many individuals would rather die than kill. It is difficult to say how valid such values are in an environment where altruism is reflexively regarded as cowardice and weakness. If a literal gorilla came to kill you and you allowed it to do so, its respect for you would not increase and even God might disparage your reticence.

In most normal societies that one can actually model economically, mass murder is not the best route to securing mates or resources; and, in fact, nearly all mass murderers on record ended up dead, imprisoned, or ostracized. If we consider this the standard for measuring mental health, then one would have to conclude that such people are mentally ill.

However, let consider a more abstract philosophical position. Suppose one concluded that the human condition is futile and that all people would be better off dead than alive. This is an idea that I have entertained in passing, so I have do difficulty imagining the mindset. In that case, it would actually be "sane" to commit mass murder. The act might actually be regarded as a form of humanitarianism.

Finally, we come to the terrorist that is committing mass murder for a political cause. Since terrorism is known to be effective in some circumstances, such behavior could be considered heroic. That is an opinion I would not have dared express on the old Mind-X, but it is one that I cannot discount. I, personally, am uncomfortable with terrorism, but I might change my mind if I lived among oppressed people and began to value their freedom more than my own oppressed condition. Strange circumstances promote strange behavior.

So, really, the pathology of mass murder is as situational as nearly all moral questions. I would never want to be in a situation where mass murder actually made sense, but I have no difficulty imagining such a situation.
4/5/2018, 10:29 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: ARE MASS MURDERERS MENTALLY ILL OR NORMAL?


>First, allow me to commend you for putting this in the Netherworld subforum. This is a topic that belongs here. As such, it actually did not belong on Mind-X, since they did not have a Netherworld subforum. Their sin was not prudishness, but uniformity.

Yes. And thank you for placing this Neatherworld forum here so fringe ideas can be discussed in a rational manner and further exposed as fringe or extracting any truths that may be in them.

>Nevertheless, this is the kind of question that mature futurists and students of the human condition should address.

And criminologists, my major in college once upon a time.

>The question of sanity must always relate to objectives. If a society existed where the only way to secure resources and/or mates was through mass murder, such behavior might be considered normal and even healthy. I am not sure that such a society has ever actually existed. For a variety of economic reasons it seems improbable.

Yes, this gets into the philosophic discussion of whether morals are relative (situational) or absolute (as in the Bible, etc).

>However, this gets to the question of objectives. If it is assumed that the only valid objectives are the securing of resources or mates the answer is reasonably straightforward. However, there are many people who would make the personal decision that securing these things is not worth the sacrifice, real or imagined, of one's personal values. Many individuals would rather die than kill. It is difficult to say how valid such values are in an environment where altruism is reflexively regarded as cowardice and weakness. If a literal gorilla came to kill you and you allowed it to do so, its respect for you would not increase and even God might disparage your reticence.

Hubbard solved the relative vs absolute morals problem in Scientology Ethics. He stated that 1. Truth is relative to truth and 2. 'Ethics (he didn't use the word "morals" because of its baggage) may be defined as the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics.' Dynamics are eight urges to survive as self, through family, the group, Mankind, all species, MEST, life force, Supreme Being.


>However, let consider a more abstract philosophical position. Suppose one concluded that the human condition is futile and that all people would be better off dead than alive.

The Scientology definition would preclude this as it would not be ethical on all dynamics for an individual to make a determination based on his 1st dynamic (Self) to destroy the 4th dynamic (Mankind).


>Finally, we come to the terrorist that is committing mass murder for a political cause. Since terrorism is known to be effective in some circumstances, such behavior could be considered heroic.

It is considered heroic to the 3rd dynamic (his group) of the terrorist but it's an assault on another's 3rd dynamic and if it's random it's an assault on the 4th dynamic, Mankind.

>That is an opinion I would not have dared express on the old Mind-X, but it is one that I cannot discount. I, personally, am uncomfortable with terrorism, but I might change my mind if I lived among oppressed people and began to value their freedom more than my own oppressed condition. Strange circumstances promote strange behavior.

The world does fit together and make perfectly logical sense from all points of view when one applies Scientology Ethics to all situations. Unfortunately most homo sapiens, and nations, etc, can only see things from their point of view.

>So, really, the pathology of mass murder is as situational as nearly all moral questions.

Yes.

>I would never want to be in a situation where mass murder actually made sense, but I have no difficulty imagining such a situation.

If however (mass) murder is considered an absolute "sin" then anyone who does it could be considered mentally ill by definition. If (mass) murder is situational one who avoids it in war is considered a coward or traitor.

So if you murder during time of "peace" you are a sinner or mentally ill however if you murder during a time of "war" you are a hero and sane.

I once brought this up with a devout Christian Bible teacher who also happened to be a lawyer. He went bonkers. He "justified" mass murder by saying that the people we kill in "wars" are not murders but killings and they are justified because we are fighting a "just war." I also ran this by a Constitutional attorney later on and he insisted on the same "company line" -- wars are just killings, not murders. So the fact is the people that work for governments -- lawyers, esquires -- have everything neatly "justified" so they can absolve themselves from any of the guilt associated with situational conflict.

In essence, we are told that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights -- rights granted by the Deity which cannot be taken away, alienated -- yet any horseshit government can take them away by ordering its peasants to "go fight a war" whereby their murders are then deemed just "killing." So Even though the Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not kill," governments, in order to optimize their 3rd Dynamic survival have engineered a legal pathway right through the morality of both the Church and the Deity itself. So much for inalienable rights.

James Jaeger

     


 

Last edited by James Jaeger, 4/6/2018, 8:51 pm
4/6/2018, 8:44 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: ARE MASS MURDERERS MENTALLY ILL OR NORMAL?


Are you a Scientologist? I have never studied this, so I have no idea what to make of it. I would not dismiss ideas in Scientology simply because the philosophy has been ridiculed. I just don't know.

I tend to found my thinking about morals on the great philosophers of human rights. I am especially taken by an observation of John Locke that is essentially an extrapolation of the golden rule. He argues that a person cannot be comfortable that they will be treated in a certain way, if they do not also extend such treamtment to others:

quote:

Sect. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1.



From such observations, John Locke derives an entire philosophy of human rights.

I could entertain Hubbard's position that mass murder is always wrong. However, not everyone who contemplates their next action has read Ron Hubbard. Sanity must be measured relative to the information that is available. A soldier assumes that his killing is fundamentally different from that of a person like Jack the Ripper. Yet, few soldiers have probably read Hubbard. Therefore, while they may be wrong, they are not necessarily insane. The men who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were not insane.

I contend that it is not always insane to commit mass murder, although it may always be wrong. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that the recent mass murderers that have shot up schools and nightclubs in the United states were simply insane.
4/6/2018, 9:16 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: ARE MASS MURDERERS MENTALLY ILL OR NORMAL?


>Are you a Scientologist?

I am not currently a member of the Church of Scientology however I have my HSDA degree in Dianetic counselling and an OEC Management Series decree. I am also an unordained Minister in the COS and was a personal friend of the late L. Ron Hubbard. My father was a government psychiatrist and my late grandfather was a Jefferson neurosurgeon. This is why I may have taken an interest in the mind and brain.

>I have never studied this, so I have no idea what to make of it. I would not dismiss ideas in Scientology simply because the philosophy has been ridiculed. I just don't know.

That is very wise. There is much in Scientology technology and ethics that is useful, but right now I believe the Church is being managed by someone who is not doing a great job. Also, the COS has some policies that in my opinion are insane. These things said, the COS is an enemy of Big Pharma and the APA because they have developed technology that can re-program the human mind rather than just address the bio-chemical structures of the brain.

>I tend to found my thinking about morals on the great philosophers of human rights.

Yes, Locke, Adams, Descartes. We can also learn from more collectivist philosophers, Comte, Rousseau, even Marx.

>I am especially taken by an observation of John Locke that is essentially an extrapolation of the golden rule. He argues that a person cannot be comfortable that they will be treated in a certain way, if they do not also extend such treamtment to others:

Right. And Hubbard had his own version of the Golden Rule: Be willing to experience anything but do only those things that others can experience easily.

>From such observations, John Locke derives an entire philosophy of human rights.

Right.

>I could entertain Hubbard's position that mass murder is always wrong.

I don't know if that would be his position as he was somewhat a relativist.

>However, not everyone who contemplates their next action has read Ron Hubbard. Sanity must be measured relative to the information that is available. A soldier assumes that his killing is fundamentally different from that of a person like Jack the Ripper. Yet, few soldiers have probably read Hubbard. Therefore, while they may be wrong, they are not necessarily insane. The men who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were not insane.

Well these acts are always "justified" by the state. The state is nothing more than a group of men who have commandeered the weapons from the rest of society. This elite group then dictates what is moral and what is not. It's as simple as that. The peasants go along with it because they have "voted" in a "democracy." So anyone who hides behind a group it labels "the government" and drops a nuclear bomb on innocent men, women and children is not only insane, but morally doomed for eternity.

>I contend that it is not always insane to commit mass murder, although it may always be wrong.

One of the Ten Commandments says "Thout shall not kill." It didn't say: No one can kill except a group of people organized as a "government."

And remember all 195 of the governments on the planet all reserve the "right" to kill and all feel it's just. So obviously all of these governments are going to have to be disarmed.

>Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that the recent mass murderers that have shot up schools and nightclubs in the United states were simply insane.

Most of them are on SSRI antidepressants.

See the script for my current film. http://www.good-guys.us/gg_script.pdf

 

Last edited by James Jaeger, 4/7/2018, 10:11 am
4/7/2018, 10:07 am Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: ARE MASS MURDERERS MENTALLY ILL OR NORMAL?


quote:

One of the Ten Commandments says "Thout shall not kill."



Properly understood, it says, "Thou shalt not murder." The duty of a soldier in wartime is not reasonably regarded as murder.

I have to admit that I cannot reasonably justify the actions of nations like Germany and Japan in WWII, but I have no difficulty understanding the actions of those who opposed them. When Winston Churchill urged Britain to resist Hitler, he was not acting as a thug. When Roosevelt finally decided to lead Americans against both Japan and Germany, he was not acting as a thug. I cannot fully explain war, but I do not accept your rationale. It is not just leaders acting on their own behalf.
4/7/2018, 9:29 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: DO THE MENTALLY ILL MURDER OR JUST KILL?


>Properly understood, it says, "Thou shalt not murder." The duty of a soldier in wartime is not reasonably regarded as murder.

I'm more concerned with what the text actually says than how it's supposed to be "understood." But putting that aside, murder and killing are synonymous as far as I'm concerned. They are simply the same act but "justified" differently.

>I have to admit that I cannot reasonably justify the actions of nations like Germany and Japan in WWII, but I have no difficulty understanding the actions of those who opposed them.

Well this is still "justification." You have taken the position that YOUR nation was right and THEIR nation was wrong. THEY, on the other hand, took the position that YOUR nation was wrong and THEIR nation was right. So you prove my point: murder and killing are relative to viewpoint. And, as I have stated before at this forum and the MIND-X, everyone is "stuck in their own heads." In other words everyone has "their" viewpoint and no others when they should develop the ability to have "all" viewpoints. In other words, homo sapiens' flaw is that it is "self-determined" and not "pan-determined." You seriously think the Deity is self-determined? Of course not. The Deity is pan-determined.

>When Winston Churchill urged Britain to resist Hitler, he was not acting as a thug. When Roosevelt finally decided to lead Americans against both Japan and Germany, he was not acting as a thug. I cannot fully explain war, but I do not accept your rationale. It is not just leaders acting on their own behalf.

All these opinions are a result of a self-determined viewpoint, and this is why the Deity did not intervene in WWI or WWII, or any war.

Even though Hitler and the Nazis were judged by the world to be "evil," the United States right now is cruising down the same "evil" road with its police state.(1) The Department of Homeland Security is modeled after Hitler's
Reichssicherheitshauptamt, what they called the Office of Fatherland Security but better known as the Schutzstaffel, or simply the SS. What will detractors of Nazi Germany say if the U.S. were to become 10 times worse than Nazi Germany? They will say, in their self-determined voice: "The U.S. just "kills" people, Nazi Germany "murdered" people."

Or one settling a pillow by his head might say, "All this is impossible." Maybe. But look at the technology we now have in the U.S. Don't you think Himmler and Eichmann would have been able to put this technology to some "good" use? Do you think there are no Himmlers or Eichmanns in existence today?

Lastly, the world avoids pan-determinism so fervently, one of the most basic questions we could ever ask is this: What did the Jews do to piss off the Nazis so much? Nothing? A whole nation of highly-intelligent, technological people spontaneously rose up and went nuts?! Well, if that's one's belief, and it happened in Germany, it could happen here or anywhere. And it could happen because people all over the planet are virtually identical as far as their biological structure and their human needs.

So we better get to the root cause of what happened at the beginning of the last two industrial revolutions -- and this should include a full confessional from all sides of the conflict. If we don't get through this "judgement day," and we initiate the third industrial revolution -- which will be the AI revolution -- we may be FUCKED as a world.

------------------------
(1) See MIDNIGHT RIDE https://youtu.be/Jno9r-OWKDM
      
   


  

          



Last edited by James Jaeger, 4/8/2018, 10:59 am
4/8/2018, 10:24 am Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top