« The Obama vs. Alito Legless Outrage
In Service to ‘the Cause’, bin Laden ‘Reappears’ Just in Time!: El Watan, Algeria »
Scott Roeder Murdered Dr. Tiller, But Shrinkdom Has Failed to Teach Critical ‘Heads Up’ to Public
Jan 29th, 2010 | 98 responses
Just a small two cents worth. A man or woman can be identified by their religion, their race, their politics, their work, their reading interests, the neighborhood they live in, but not by their mental state. It is the last politically correct white-out we have… not to know, not to notice mental illness in the extreme.
Are we all neurotic? Of course. But there’s a huge difference between having weeds in the garden vs raging and burning down every person and house in sight. Often over my lifetime, whether it’s Andrea Yates who drowned her five children, or various homicidal/ suicidal persons who make the big news, I often think, we have failed.
We shrinks have failed to arm the public with knowledge about who is just a person struggling along with one thing or another (weeds in the garden), and who is developing into a truly dangerous human being with all wiring of the mind connected to the heart, connected to reason, connected to spirit and soul, gone haywire.
Mr. Scott Roeder, the man found guilty of his pre-planned murder of Doctor George Tiller inside the Reformation Lutheran church, fled afterward. He was also found guilty of aggravated assault for threatening to kill two other men inside the church.
Mr. Scott Roeder claims to be a Christian supported by some Christians. Mr. Roeder admitted he murdered the Doctor, and that he had no regret or remorse. Just from another side, this: In the Christ I continue to learn all these decades, a person who murders another person can be both judged and forgiven by God.
However, it’s contingent on his true remorse and admitting he took a life wrongfully, that he be made right with the God the person claims to follow. I say this not to mock Mr. Roeder nor his Christian supporters, but rather to show the seeming disconnect of the mind in this case…
but also in the minds of many who murder others without remorse. Lack of contrition, is common in those disabled mentally. Inability to control one’s inhumane impulses. And I dont mean smoking cigarettes and having too many brews. I mean homocidal intents.
Remorse is a function of conscience. Even in war, even when one is trained to kill, and must carry out orders, many many who do so, suffer after. All manner of regrets can arise about various matters, for each soul gone to war has a conscience and is filled with love… even as they know they did what they were ordered to do, and in some cases had to do, and wanted to do, and been proud of perhaps.
But striving to get square with one’s conscience, the holding of all life precious, the steep and solid set of rights and wrongs most of us carry, seeing the inhumanity of war, can often be at the base, for instance of PTDS, later.
My sense as a shrink is that Mr. Roeder is not well, and is bolsetered behind the scenes by those who want him ‘to hold his head up high’ for what he did, to be their aegis flapping in the wind, ‘righteous man goes to prison for his wondrous beliefs.’
But in God’s sight, as I understand it with my small finite mind, God is said to see such matters differently as per Christian proscriptions. Christ is the God of Love, seeming supportive of ALL life, all sinners seen as souls yet to be awakened.
Yet, Mr. Roeder’s likely fantasy weaves in with an extremist view from Christianity that all infidels should be murdered on the spot. “Slay the Middanites,” and all that that we see in some of the old old writings.
On the other hand, I dont believe Roeder is capable of reasoning beyond obcessive thought, not from what I’ve seen him say.
People with what I think might be his set of disorders are most dangerously affected by rhetoric and harping between good and evil. Cho (Virginia Tech), and Harris and Klybold (Columbine) and many other homicidally ill persons think they are on the side of Good against Evil, and thus act to slaughter others with full belief the God of Doom or the God of Revelation, or the Black God or the Good God is on their side.
Though there are those on earth who say there is a time and place for aggression, and many of us struggle to weigh this with ethics regarding war and death of any kind, there is also a mental disorder that claims that individuals and groups are evil and only oneself is good. And that all whom are evil must be physically eradicated. It is an extremely sad but also incredibly dangerous mental disorder.
It’s called paranoid schizophrenia. In the extreme of this psychosis, a person many be able to half-well groom themselves and sometimes hold jobs at least intermittantly, and sometimes marry for a time and have children.
But a person suffering from this disorder creates extremely disturbed relationships wherever they go, for they break into psychotic thoughts and make damaging and menacing moves toward others, often in later phrases, escalating to uncontained violence.
Persons with this diagnosis (and not saying this is what Mr. Roeder has, but many of its symptoms appear to be in and with him) are often homicidal and often suicidal as well. Cho and Eric Harris suffered, in my opinion, from this particular disorder also. The obsessive grind to it, makes the person finally desperate to act in ways ‘to kill off’ the demon.
One of the things CERTAIN about persons whose minds split into two extreme parts where all is defined as evil/satanic and good/godly, is that they are the MOST vulnerable to violence from hearing news, rhetoric, propaganda, rabble rousing. They are the ones who decide they are being told to ‘do something to end it all.’
They are also the most vulnerable to being beaten up and/ or killed by others on the streets or at work, who have had ‘enough’ of their aggression and obcessive or violent talk. They are also the most vulnerable to walking into the river or in front of a train because of what their minds tell them is true, that in our consensual reality, is not true… such as ‘that man over there is trying to kill me; I can tell by how he is eating his hamburger.’
Over the years, there has been debate about this disorder, that perhaps to make all symptomatology available to the public means the public would misuse it, trying to self-diagnose, or worse, diagnose others who are merely being in their weird states of development, especially as teens, those states we all go through.
But each time there is a murder(s), a loss of life and the person who did the execution is found to be clearly disturbed and for long periods of time previous and many noted it a priori, but others poo-poohed the evidences consistently, instead acting as obstructionists to that person getting the critical help needed and the ongoing oversight needed…
thus, we see horrendous outcomes from those failures to notice, have real and even handed knowledge, to learn to weigh fairly, to report effectively, to help and enable help effectively, to watch over without looking away.
Disorders like these are in no way chosen by the persons who have them. They do not arise in the morning saying I will be violent and difficult today. They cannot control their thought system. The shizophrenias which contain psychotic elements are not a disease, per se. They’re a brain chemical disorder. And there are medicines that can be given to help even-out the mind and help to wall off the psychosis, especially, bringing the internal fear and rage down to a dull roar that is managable.
Some persons with this challenge do well with the medicines. Others refuse to take whatever medicines consistently, saying they want to be free, and that doctors are trying to control them.
Where the compass lies appears to be, what will most help to keep this person free, safe, alive, with a quality of life, and also keep others safe too.
____________
CODA
Just in case anyone wonders, I havent a dog in this particular fight about abortion. I’ve written several articles about abortion at TMV. I am on the side of life, which doesnt feel like ‘a side.’ It feels like an instinct.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
98 Responses to “Scott Roeder Murdered Dr. Tiller, But Shrinkdom Has Failed to Teach Critical ‘Heads Up’ to Public”
Can we say “late term abortions?”..
Tiller was one out of three doctors in the USA that did late term abortions ..THAT is the reason he was so targeted by the anti abortionists.
Roeder is not Catholic. Shannon Shelly (the one who shot him in the nintys) is not Catholic…
Saying it is so does not make it so and yelling that anti-abortion fanatical violence is all due to the Catholics is not only very wrong but it's no better than Beck, Limbaugh or Savage yelling the hate mongering crap that they yell.
Remember that silly advert that MTV used to run?
Stop the hate?
I actually believe in it.
Call me old fashioned.
My two cents
Ghost
Kathy -
I am neither Roman Catholic nor fundamentalist, yet I am Christian, and opposed to abortion. Also, there are Jews who oppose it, as well as Mormons and many other stripes of faith or no faith. Reasoned opposition to abortion is a phenomenon that cuts across religious and socio-economic backgrounds, and if recent polls are to be believed, opposition to abortion is a rising tide in the United States. This is certainly not to excuse extremists who (in the past) on rare occasions have bombed abortion clinics or (in this case) targeted an abortionist for murder. There is unanimity that two wrongs never make a right, and my sympathy goes out to the family of Dr. Tiller.
Dear Dr.E,
wanted to explain I have the luck to remove from a place where my daugther and I were in danger, just because I 've helped a neighbour who was agressed by young men from the place. Every day I have to listen to them explaining they would “get me”, make fire in my flat, saying “mother is a …” to my daughter as I walk etc. So that's why I 've my outburst about M.Jo Kopechne.
Sorry to talk again about me (I swear I stop now the “I I I …” !).
Good Morning Kathy.
My sarcastic comment about defrocking the Catholic Church of it tax exempt status was purely in reference to FT's posing that in the context of Roeder's actions. It simply did not address the subject of the thread and did not constitute a solution to the problem of murdering doctors.
There are serious concerns about many churchs' in volvement in politics, including the Catholic Church. Its refusal to give communion to prominent pro-choice Catholic politicians during campaigns is nothing less than attempted intimidation. On the other hand, what the Church's leadership does is not reflective of everyday Catholics, many of whom are pro-choice.
Many churches are probably in violation of the law vis-a-vis political activity, perhaps none more so than the Mormon Church in those states where it has large populations. I don't know if removing tax exempt status is the way to address it. I'll need to think on that one.
Guess I was just frustrated with FT's attempt to blame the woes of the world on Catholics. My God, that's an old KKK rant; the three corners of their triangle of hatred were blacks, Jews and Catholics.
g. c.
Dr. E
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I agree that the dueling psychiatrist issue in courtroom settings is an unfortunate part of our adversarial legal system and does more to muddy the waters than clarify them.
We agree, I think, about those ill mentally. Maybe more who kill are mentally ill than I believe and I have not seen it, though all my clients were examined by psychologist/psychiatrist teams, as in law, looking to see if there was a mental disease/defect defense available. Within that definition, which admittedly is different than perhaps your clinical view, only 2 out of 40+. Maybe our professions cause us to use different standards and that is where the difference lies.
Fascinating post, dr. e. No surprise.
Here's my question (which is another way of saying, I would really like to know your thoughts on this):
How do we analyze the mind that is able to believe that the law should allow for a murder which that mind deems to be justifiable? I'm not talking about the legal let's try and argue this and see how it goes over perspective. I mean, there are people who in all other realms of their life probably function without elements of any DSM diagnosis. But then make the case that and believe to their core that murdering an individual whom they believe murders individuals is acceptable.
I don't know if there's an answer separate from the law – we do allow justifiable homicide – in the case of self-defense for example. And yet our legal system is still at the mercy of individuals. We must always be left to trusting the jurists, and yet we know that they too must work within the confines of the law, even if we think they're contorting things.
Do you think there is a mental health element behind the thinking that something which is otherwise unlawful and impermissible (murder) as being okay in some situations as always part of that thinking?
Personally, I think this is a fascinating subject and a moving target. If you've ever listened to someone explain hopelessness felt at the time of suicidal ideation, it is amazing how rational they can sound, within their own framework and points of reference, and yet we feel compelled to convince them otherwise because of how we feel about the act of suicide and the taking of a life.
Scott Roeder has been found guilty by a jury of peers of first degree murder. He should now be executed.
The government has the right to execute, but individuals do not.
However, the same should apply to those that murder unborn children – but not by individuals – by the government. The problem is that the left doesn't consider unborn children “life”.
Roeder is a scumbag. His “faith” does not allow for murder, no more than it allows for abortion. He became what he stood against.
This stream of blogs are very judgemental…the implication is that there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way of doing things. Dogmatic religion has designed a set of “rules” or commandments that help us weed out the good people from the bad people and thus it is easy to say I am better than you are which has resulted in all the religious wars of the world. I think the Buddhists are probably the closest to the truth..the middle way of the compassionate heart. None of us knows what someone else is going through unless we step into their shoes. We are all at different levels of consciousness and perhaps that is our task in a lifetime to evolve as much as we can. The irony of the Catholic church is that even taking birth control is against the principles of pro-life. The inquisitions were the worst part of the Church's history…how can anyone judge someone else about being pro-life, etc. Just my thoughts on the subject.
I agree, just need to drop the last sentence.
hi there Jill, after a brush with law school, I understood far more deeply what it means in our world that ethics is often higher than the law. Law is a civil solution to fierce attempts by us all 'to keep the peace' as well as we can on earth. Ethics often goes many steps further, not just to preserve a temperate peace, but to place boundaries, care and respect for those who are vulnerable.
One of my current inquiries for an article is re 'mental health court,' ; Ive been in touch with two, one in the lower northwest and one in the east. The recognition there, among many others, is that far more persons alleged to have committed crimes are quite ill, and the court is not usually in a position because of its paid and hired guns systems,
as well as its lack of more than a course in med and psych training somewhere back in grad school without depth and without current knowledge… and the courts' time brackets that push people through 'en cattle' and many attitudes of ” well he knows what day of the week it is and who's president so he/she seems ok to me”
Those are not the most expedient nor ways to recognize or weigh such matters which are medical and psychological, accurately. There are many other reasons why mental health courts came about, including compassionate care and help for offenders rather than placing them in conditions that literally make them worse and untreated.
I see your question in your second to last paragraph, and cannot answer it unless I knew that exact person. I do see people as you mention there, who seem rational in many ways, and hold that killing is alright under many circumstances. Self-defense seems a reason that can stand, though I've seen the aftermath of people who've killed in self-defence and although some of the pubic hurls hurrahs, even though in the moment the rightness of the shot was unequivocal, there is aftermath that even the toughest have to wade through.
Re suicide, there are those who think the otherwise healthy people should be allowed to kill themselves as children, as teenagers, as adults. But I personally dont agree with what I think of as despicable old Werner Erhart stuff: people choose to die, that's alright. I dont think it's alright.
Catholics did it. Period.
I suggest that YOU look it up.
Because ot that attack, I will read nothing else in post.
Oh come now Kathy. You are attacking me for your own prejudiced reasons. You hate the Catholic Church. You hate the Catholic Church because they hate your liberal ideology.
You can’t be Kathy Katholic and be liberal. Silly rabbit.
that you and your girl are safe now is the most important. Take care.
dr.e
Truth is before your eyes, however since you, and, I are not all knowing, we will never comprehend it.
Religion is a population control mechanism that causes people to rely on “something else” rather than themselves. It is a political power in it’s own ambitions and has slaughtered populations expanding or protecting those ambitions.
It is used by governments for controlling the masses until it’s own ambitions differ with the body politic, or, whatever absolute power repressor exists, then one or the other must change or conflict occurs. These have been often violent. The catholic Church has changed many times for this reason as well as the rest of Christianity and all religion. The very fact that they change, makes them a falsehood.
IMO religion is simply superstition organized for nefarious purposes. The “evils” of Christianity are well documented and numerous beyond their own description of redemption.
A good example would be the recent earthquakes in Italy. Many buildings were destroyed. The Vatican announced to the population that it would; rebuild “your” churches for you. That is like McDonalds announcing, after an devastating earthquake, that it would; rebuild “your” MacDonald’s restaurants for you. Why not rebuild the people’s homes or other non-self interest? it’s a false generosity.
I am neither Roman Catholic nor fundamentalist, yet I am Christian, and opposed to abortion. Also, there are Jews who oppose it, as well as Mormons and many other stripes of faith or no faith. Reasoned opposition to abortion is a phenomenon that cuts across religious and socio-economic backgrounds, and if recent polls are to be believed, opposition to abortion is a rising tide in the United States.
Redbus, you don't really need to tell ME this. I wrote substantively the same thing to Father_Time, so you'd be better off addressing this correction to him.
Guess I was just frustrated with FT's attempt to blame the woes of the world on Catholics. My God, that's an old KKK rant; the three corners of their triangle of hatred were blacks, Jews and Catholics.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more. If I misunderstood your intention before (and it seems I did), I apologize.
Thanks, Clarissa. I guess I'm stuck on this almost epistemological question about whether, to think that murder can be justified in cases broader than self-defense (or in a broadening of the notion of self-defense), is itself the thought of someone who thereby must have a mental illness or defect, or do we call it a mental illness or defect because, by religious tenets or the law of humans we've decided that it's not okay? Sorry if I'm not explaining what's in my head that well!
I do not hate the Catholic Church. I do not hate any person or institution or religion on the basis that they disagree with or oppose my political, social, and/or religious values. I do object strongly to attempts to deny women — by law or by force — their God-given right to control and make decisions for their own health and lives, regardless of whether those attempts are based in religious belief or doctrine, or not.
As tidbits pointed out, there are plenty of Catholics who are pro-choice and/or liberal on an array of issues. There are many Catholic organizations that exist precisely to represent the pro-choice Catholic viewpoint, and there are ecumenical religious organizations of which Catholics are members along with other religious traditions.
What you say is just factually wrong. That's all I will say to you on the subject.
What distinguishes justified belief from opinion, is what I hear you saying/ asking to mull over. Sometime in future, fireplace in the Rockies, wintertime, you, me and others… we'll need weeks. I've no short answers, but then neither does epistemology by definition, since opinions have to be used to differentiate one opinion from belief, and visa versa. I think the old Hawthornian issue. Hard to get far enough away to finalize all conclusions objectively.
Just my two cents, I'm more interested in hearing what you think and why, how, than in determining a mean.
Thanks always Jillzie
dr.e
Well – maybe even more nuanced and theoretical than that: who defines AND what distinguishes thoughts that get placed in the “he or she has a mental illness” category from thoughts that are judged as defenses we'll accept for behavior we usually won't accept? And how do we do either of those, can we, without looking to religion? HEAVY!!!!!!
Hi Jefferson Davis
Tidbits is entitled to his own opinion as well as I am. I am glad to see that there is another poster that agrees with me when he(Tibits) tried to isolate me as being 'alone' in my assessment of homocide here at TMV, which covers more angles in different situations and a grand jury to decide punishment.
I stand by my assessment of the most horrific of crimes should be exucuted. I might add not in an eye for an eye literally, that sounds morally on the same level as the condemned that isfound guilty. I will state now my idea of Capital punishment should be by lethal injection.
Example: If some vicious serial killer killed your loved one in the most hidious imaginal way in a senseless act, and walked, You don,t know how you would react..would you? you might feel not lowering yourself to their level is to hate, But deep in your mind you would want justice done either in your lifetime to that person, or wish God to avenge the act to your wounded soul? To many decent law abiding citizens deserve to live un-molested by those who do harm, and that is to 'remove' a malignant cancer among the healthy whole.
just as one of several thoughts, I think perhaps first I'd have to open a discussion as y ou proposed, by thinking about/ asking whether there are instincts for right and wrong in most persons, and how those are determined. Just one observation is that some of the most kind and clear people I've met in life can be any religion or no religion. I wonder sometimes about what might be set into us that causes us amongst other things to want to punish, to want to love, to want peace. Incidentally long ago, I read a book by Menninger (from famous clinic) and it was deep on these matters. It might have been called something like the WIll to Punish.
“Religion is a population control mechanism that causes people to rely on “something else” rather than themselves. It is a political power in it’s own ambitions and has slaughtered populations expanding or protecting those ambitions.”
Read Machiavelli and every other ethics/political philosopher out there. Religion is not SUPPOSED to be “population control”, that is supposed to be left to the politicians. They religion you hate is probably they very same that I despise (inquisitions, crusades, Jihad, etc). Religion is supposed to be a common morality – not a tool to control the masses.
” to think that murder can be justified in cases broader than self-defense “
I liked the exchange between you and Clarissa (archangel).
I have to say that murder is always wrong. Self defense has largely been considered justifiable homocide. Protecting your neighbor (as in the Texas case) has also been considered justifiable (that one is “iffy”). In Roeder's case, he was protecting life that had no direct connection to him. He said he was protecting potential unborn children from the “murderer”. I'm not buying it.
Although I agree with the lunatic that abortion is murder, no one but the government can make that determination and carry out a sentence like that. It would be no different than someone attempting to assassinate a president to save the lives of our soldiers. (Note to the NSA: that was completely rhetorical and not meant as a threat). Individuals do NOT have the right to kill as a means of punishment or prevention. That HAS to be left to governments ONLY.
I never thought nor said that you hated anybody Kathy. (except possibly me).
As far as some Catholics being pro-choice, that’s an impossibility according to the official stance of the Catholic Church. I will quote father Corapi, “ you cannot be pro-choice and be catholic”. You may find father Corapi on the internet easily enough, and, you can get copies of his speeches where he states this several times.
Also, in February 2007, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, (Senator Ted Kennedy’s son), was asked to refrain from receiving Holy Communion by his Bishop, Thomas Tobin. Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion.
As stated on EWTN by officials of the Catholic Church, “You cannot be Catholic and not be 100% in agreement with the Catholic Church. The Pope is infallible on maters of doctrine, you cannot be in disagreement”.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, person net au. person net au said: Scott Roeder Murdered Dr. Tiller, But Shrinkdom Has Failed to Teach Critical … http://bit.ly/dbPtKQ [...]
There are no absolute “common moralities”. There is no god. Ancient philosophy is unsophisticated and irrelevant. Much like…..(deleted).
Just a small side note, i was listening to a program on our local NPR, they made reference that Scott Roeder has a long history or Bi-Polar disorder that had gone untreated for years. Roeder's brother also has the same diagnosis. Paranoia could can also be within the far swing of bi-polar.
One of the things i found most interesting in this case was the defense team wanted to present to the jury consideration for Voluntary Manslaughter. . .
“Voluntary Manslaughter” under Kansas State Law:
Voluntary Manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion or upon the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force. The sentencing guidelines provide a range of sentence from a minimum of 55 months imprisonment to a maximum prison term of 247 months.”
To break this down, I looked at it’s two parts. Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing in one of these two possible scenarios:
* upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, or;
* upon the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force
Clearly this was no heat of passion situation. Roeder had hung out at some of Tiller’s trials – filings courtesy of former AG Phill Kline – and made no bones about his radical pro-life stance. Roeder had also been picked up for carrying explosives in his vehicle, and was and/or is still part of a militia group. Roeder has a history of violent tendencies. The defenses attempt for Voluntary Manslaughter defense was likely under the second part of Kansas law – the unreasonable but honest belief bit. Due to Roeder’s untreated bipolar disorder, I am guessing the defense was hoping to argue that Roeder was capable of having an unreasonable but honest belief that he had to shoot and kill in cold blood Dr. Tiller, in his own church because of the mental disorder and his passionate religious beliefs on abortion.
The Judge then ruled out voluntary manslaughter which prohibited it from turning into an abortion issue case. The Voluntary Manslaughter would of opened a door that could of skewed the entire case. . . I was most pleased to her the Judges decision.
“Public Defender Rudy: “Everything we had, since day one, we were aiming for the manslaughter.” Then the judge did not give the jury the option of voluntary manslaughter. “It was crushing,” Rudy said.
. Here is an amusing quote from the trial. . .
Judge Warren Wilbert, addressing public defender Mark Rudy:
“I know you’ve practiced in another jurisdiction but now your with Dorothy and the rest of us in KS.”
“There are no absolute “common moralities”. There is no god. Ancient philosophy is unsophisticated and irrelevant. Much like…..(deleted).”
I can't help but to notice that many of your comments get deleted. Shows a bit of ignorance, don't you think? I feel more sorry for you with every passing day.
As for “absolute common moralities”, there absolutely IS, just not within your beloved humanism where EVERYONE is right.
Well apparently you weren’t perceptive enough to notice that it was I that wrote the word “deleted“, and, that it differs from an actual deletion. I also doubt that you can rationalize why I wrote it.
As far as absolute moralities, prove it. You can't and you never will.
As far as “sorry”, don't be. I'm quite happy. However if you would like to be friends, open a dialog without the uniform.
open a dialog without the uniform.'
Again, someone picking on an icon. And, did anyone ever win an argument on religion that satisfied both parties?
Carl Jung (in Stein 1995) once said, “we need more understanding of human nature, because the only real danger that exists is man himself…..His psyche should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil”
“As far as absolute moralities, prove it. You can't and you never will. As far as “sorry”, don't be. I'm quite happy. However if you would like to be friends, open a dialog without the uniform.”
I'll address these separately.
Absolute moralities, prove it…… YOU are the one who made the king-of-the-world proclamation that “there are no absolute moralities”. The burden of proof, therefore, is YOURS.
Christian moralites, when followed, have provided for stable, productive, and selfless societies. When morons get involved and attempt to make God something he is not (i.e., a campaign slogan), is when it gets ugly.
The only thing humanism brings is discontent and chaos. That's your ultimate goal for America.
Next…. “I'm quite happy…”
Your words prove otherwise. I have yet to see a pleasant post from you. You are full of anger and hatred, much like the religious extremists you detest.
And lastly, “”if you would like to be friends, open a dialog without the uniform”.
No on both. The uniform is a huge part of who I am. I REFUSE to be ashamed of it. I'm quite proud to wear it. You may be ashamed to wear you nation's colors, but I am not.
I have yet to see a pleasant post from you.”
Not totally true. He once asked me if I was into bestiality; I think he meant it as a compliment.
I think having a non-human icon gives the writer more flexibility and divorces him from any preconceived notions. (Of course, having the best icon around makes me slightly biased.) I know it bothers me a little addressing a human picture especially a female since I might hold back a little (I know, a sexist remark, what's new.)
Anyway, I know some of the people that have really been kicked around by life and seen horrors are anti-religious and anti-deity. Just my two cents.
Thanks Duck, and, we know that Ducks have no easy life either. I have worked notoriously against duck hunting all my life except when saving humans in Africa and the middle east occupied my time. I am proud of both. As for the bestiality question, well I can see you standing with that guy and….I don’t know…assumptions get formed from visual stimuli.
As for bumpkiss the military buffoon, just practice equipment, not a real Pal like you.
just practice equipment”
I have to confess, FT, I once wore the brown boots of the U.S. Army, and proud of it. Never got out of NJ, however. But, even my limited exposure has stayed with me.
The guy in the icon is Cornfed, Duckman's partner in a detective agency, a pig, but the two others, Uranus and fluffy were fair game, if you call being put in a food processor a form of sex. (You probably would.)
“practice equipment”….
Nice try, FT. You have yet to beat me in intellectual debate. You're not ready to move up from your Special Olympics Debate team yet. Let me know if you need a hugger.
I see.
I do remember you and your accomplices many years ago. About the time “future shock” was being shown to school kids.
We already know that you are a legend in your own mind.
I don't practice upon you for debate. Waste of time. I practice the art of antagonism upon you, since you are easy and I need a control.
I like your comments Jillmz.
Reading what some women write here, is like watching doilies being knitted. Not you. Your pragmatism is refreshing. Your objectivity appreciated. Your lack of “precious moments mom” sweetness, stress relieving. My hero, Don Rickles would approve I suspect.
“I practice the art of antagonism upon you, since you are easy and I need a control.”
I love antagonism, brother. It keeps me honest. You are right about that. We all need that one person to challenge our intellect. And I'm not a legend in my own mind by a long shot.
I appreciate the distinctions you make and am absolutely committed to the belief that we must all, and each of us, make those distinctions in order to maintain an orderly society. I'm pleased with the outcome of that trial and only wish that there were fewer and fewer people who support even attempting the actions and then the lawsuits like Roeders.
Hmm – sounds very very intriguing. There's that Milgram experiment from the 1960s to see under what pressure you could make people hurt others. But whether those people could then be declared people with altered states of mind such that we would call them mentally ill? Ahhh – sometimes I wish I could go back to being a fulltime student somewhere in an ivory tower.
Well – I appreciate the compliment but confess to not quite getting the Don Rickles reference – yes I know who he is (I'm in my late 40s), but don't recognize the specific reference?
For me, engagement is not a pasttime – it really is a way to work things out. I take it seriously and assume others with whom I engage are doing the same. The few times I've been unable to continue here are usually when I feel that the same level of seriousness isn't coming from the other(s). But also sometimes you just reach an impasse.
I've never been in an ivory tower and personally, I dont ever wish to be there Jill. Mental illness is not willful. In the streets, where I rose up from, It derives from a physiological eitiology that causes person's judgments to be outside the mean; it disallows what some would call 'reasoned' participation at many levels of life that others have the option of enjoying. Just my two cents worth from where I live and work.
I'm thinking I'm not being clear and I've now deleted three attempts to explain what's in my head – which is part what I WAS intending with my reference to studying and ivory towers – to me, that reference means something very far away from the enormous cacophony of what currently is my life – that was all I meant but maybe I should have used a different reference! And should in the future – to me, it represents long times allowed for thinking outloud and making associations and untangling a lot of thoughts.
I didn't intend for the reference to have any other meaning than that – maybe a little too self-referential for the web where no one can see the chaos around me and the notion I have for myself re: what an ivory tower represents – which could be a wrong or malapropriated notion in the first place!
My sincere apologies.
jillzie, tone is weird on internet sometimes. No apologies necessary. We were just trying to have a friendly, albeit, truncated exchange. Someday, lets have a real one when I'm in your home state; then we'll have plenty of time! I hope you'll write more or cross post on tmv about your adventures from the inside as citycouncilwoman in your little berg. I'd love to hear about 'how to,' when to, with whom to. I think it's far more fascinating to hear first hand ins and outs of 'standing' for a constituency, yet working toward bi-partisanship