BF2S Forums DAST Chat

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

your work doesn't offer health benefits? Tsk tsk

It does derp. I just never bothered to learn about any it because I was covered through my mom. I just had to fill out a form with my insurance info in order to be excluded from the companies insurance policy plan.

Should have elected Bernie. He would have handled this all for me.

The capitalist really managed to screw up the post cold war era.

Its nice to see Netanyahu hopping mad.

The neat thing about the UN vote is to undo it would need Russia and China to agree, and that's unlikely to ever happen.

guy was fucked up, probably didn't have a solid family structure, was radicalized on the internet/through other stupid people he interacted with, etc

he is mentally ill but deserves to die

I read his wiki and he is a poor high school dropout who spent his time by himself in his room doing drugs. Plenty of people fit that description without shooting 9 people.

pirana6 wrote:

uziq wrote:

being a racist piece of shit and destroying nine families isn't a mental illness.

If thinking a persons skin color is justification for killing them isn't a mental illness, I don't what is.

That would be the little italicized sentence in the dictionary underneath the actual definition of 'mental illness'.

you don't understand a) what a mental illness is or b) how defences pertaining to mental states affect law.

to get a defense or mitigating factor for any sort of mental illness, the person has to be insane or exhibit diminished responsibility at the time of committing the offence. for someone who has carefully planned a massacre, gone out and bought a gun and ammo, strategised it, written at length in blogposts or published race-hate manifestos, etc., they are not going to get a defense of insanity. they have to exhibit a loss of control or faculties at the time of committing the offense. what use would there be for society or the victim's families by declaring that that kid was 'mentally ill'? legally it means nothing. he plotted a mass killing just as well as any sane person would be able to.

in terms of classifying extremist views as mental illness... yeah, no. it doesn't matter what theory of mental illness you subscribe to, a person getting sucked into a world of online hate and extremist views is not medically ill. that would be like saying the majority of nazi germany's population had a mental illness because a dehumanising anti-semitism was the norm. what does that even mean? it's pointless and helps nobody. mental illness is a problem with an individual's psychology or neurology. when it comes to group movements, ideologies, extremist views, cults, etc., it doesn't help to use the individual-patient paradigm of 'mental illness'. is the entire following of scientology mentally ill? (people can be drawn to these movements and convenient groupthink because they are mentally ill or predisposed, but that's a different matter, and something the expert witnesses in this case clearly didn't think applied.)

some classifications that do stick to these martyr-messiah-extremist-crusader types is narcissistic personality disorder. people who think they have been chosen to start a race war and be some grand and crucial figure in history could possibly be suffering some sort of delusion. someone who hears voices for months that beseech them to murder someone probably has paranoid schizophrenia. but a kid who has been suckered into extremist circles isn't mentally ill.

Last edited by uziq (2017-01-11 10:20:50)

it's premeditated and involves malice aforethought which means it's murder as far as pretty much any western justice system is concerned (wording may change but principles are essentially the same). just because those views are utterly repugnant to mainstream liberal society, just because they are considered so far beyond the pale, that doesn't mean the person has a problem with their brain. it means you have a problem with your liberal imagination.

So Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. I believe she should have been punished but she definitely suffered enough already. I am still strongly against giving Snowden a pardon though.

DesertFox- wrote:

It seems May is positioning herself to bend over the UK and give it a Brexiting it won't soon forget. That'll show... someone... probably.

i was a remainer but there's little question that europe is a failing project, anyway. half the member states have become whipping boys to the german banks, who acted just as shady as the american banks during the financial crisis. pretty funny that obama did nothing about wall street and then gave merkel that presidential medal.

ordinary people in europe are pissed off. you have trump, we have brexit. i doubt france will go fully mental during their own upcoming election – the bourgeoisie are a well established majority there – but the backlash is continent-wide. there is no recovery plan in place for vast swathes of southern europe. we should remember that. greece, italy, spain – they're all staggering, and everyone is trying to prop up the fiction.

reminds me of a line from montaigne: "though we have fallen, we should remember it is not from a great height".

Last edited by uziq (2017-01-18 00:24:54)

He needed to serve time, and I'd say that 7 years is more reasonable than 35.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't think he did, don't you have freedom of information over there?

Scooter Libby should have served time.

freedom of information doesn't apply to confidential documents or secret state papers, derp. state security over rides public interest – in the u.k. and australia too.

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't think he did, don't you have freedom of information over there?

Scooter Libby should have served time.

freedom of information doesn't apply to confidential documents or secret state papers, derp. state security over rides public interest – in the u.k. and australia too.

A defence should be if its exposing serious crimes by the govt, security services or military.