At least 3 dead after gunman opens fire at Lafayette, La. movie theater

[Nazaroo]

I thought someone just said he used the Nazi bit as a criticism of the city that closed him. So likely not a Nazi.

Not likely.

Think about it.

Would you put a Nazi flag on your own place of business,
and then "explain" it as you are protesting that the government
are 'nazis' for not letting you sell drugs to minors?

That is likely a very implausible excuse to neighbours complaints
about the nazi flag.

I see no other sign or indication that it is anything but a proud display
at the top of the building.

No one is going to buy his BS anymore than if a biker clubhouse
displayed the Confederate flag on their front door,
and 'explained' that the government are 'Southerners'
for not letting them sell meth at high schools.

Wise up please.

Also, I think he received a degree from a then unaccredited school and I don't know that he ever took or passed the Bar exam, which is what you have to do to actually be a lawyer. The degree is a rough doctorate plus, in terms of hours put in, but that's about it.

So he was a lawyer-wannabe.

Guess thats like a pedophile wannabe.

I suggest a pre-emptive strike,
which in this case would have saved the lives of 2 people.

So your definition of a pedophile is someone who makes a buck selling beer to teenagers? lain:

Why do you think that is inadequate to indicate a pedophile?

Do you think he was only doing it 'for the money'?

Would you also say that an abortionist is also only doing it 'for the money'?

Maybe you need to look a little deeper here.


I appreciate that in your strange little town, not all lawyers are
members of government pedophile rings (must be a very unusual place).

But please don't extend your local clinical experience to
the horrific reality of federal governments and CPS rackets.

 

[Nazaroo]

Someone let out the crazy. Wow Naz, I almost feel like I need to try to get you help.

But please, don't get up.

I'll turn myself in tonight.

Remember that Canadians are about 10 orders of magnitude less crazy
as crazies than Americans.

My first act of Canadian violence will be to stop saying "sorry"
every time you bump into me on the subway.

 

[Nazaroo]

Someone let out the crazy. Wow Naz, I almost feel like I need to try to get you help.

And while you're offering me help,
remember to mail the components of the AK-47 separately.

Canadians aren't allowed to have American toys, according to our government.

 

[Town Heretic]

Would you put a Nazi flag on your own place of business, and then "explain" it as you are protesting that the government are 'nazis' for not letting you sell drugs to minors?

I'm sane, so it's an unfair question. This goofball said he put the Nazi bit up to protest Nazi like behavior on the part of the entities who shut it down.

Now if he'd put it up before, different story.

That is likely a very implausible excuse to neighbours complaints about the nazi flag.

Or, you're just trying to keep that label you want on him stuck there. It doesn't make sense that he'd suddenly care about neighbors thinking he was a Nazi, AFTER putting up the Nazi bit, unless he wasn't and he meant it to insult the folks who closed him down, just like he said.

Wise up please.

Sorry, but you're reaching. The above is the more likely answer, because it actually jells with the facts.

So he was a lawyer-wannabe.

Which isn't the same animal.

Guess thats like a pedophile wannabe.

Only if you're crazy or someone gave you a bad dictionary.

Or, again, is your local and are all pastors pedophiles? Because we have any number of anecdotal "proofs" that many have been.

I suggest a pre-emptive strike, which in this case would have saved the lives of 2 people.

That's likely what that guy was saying to himself, something irrational and angry.

I wrote: So your definition of a pedophile is someone who makes a buck selling beer to teenagers?

Why do you think that is inadequate to indicate a pedophile?

Because there's a world of difference between selling beer illegally and molesting children.

Do you think he was only doing it 'for the money'?

Because I'm pretty sure he was paid and there's nothing else that tells me it was about anything else. No conviction for child porn, molestation, etc.

Would you also say that an abortionist is also only doing it 'for the money'?

I imagine it varies.

Maybe you need to look a little deeper here.

Maybe you should stick to the facts and let them speak.

I appreciate that in your strange little town, not all lawyers are
members of government pedophile rings (must be a very unusual place)

It really isn't. And it really isn't rational to think that because you've seen a dozen fires most of the world is blazing.

 

[User Name]

Link to the shooter's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/rusty.houser.56

 

[Ktoyou]

I know it is terrible, Lafayette, La. used to be such a nice town.

 

[fool]

The lesson is clear.
Don't go to movie theaters.
Why would you when we have Amazon Prime and such.
Watch that stuff at home.

 

[MarcATL]

At least 3 dead after gunman opens fire at Lafayette, La. movie theater



Prayers for the victims and their families, looks like a copycat killer after James Holmes who shot people at a theatre in colorado, in which it was decided today in that case that the death penalty can be saught. Colo. theater shooting jurors say death penalty can be considered

Wasn't a copycat. In fact, the guy was a known rabid rightwinger who was fairly well known for his rightwing views locally. Folks who knew him said they were always afraid of getting him upset.

 

[Town Heretic]

The lesson is clear.
Don't go to movie theaters.
Why would you when we have Amazon Prime and such.
Watch that stuff at home.

Sure, that sounds great...until you look at the FBI statistics and realize that most homicides, including multiple homicides, occur in the home.

:noid:

 

[Nazaroo]

I'm sane, so it's an unfair question.

I know the sanity/insanity thing is great for lawyers as a plea,
but I don't buy psychiatry or psychology, because I already have
an adequate explanation for bad behaviour: Sin, and the Bible.

It disturbs me that you give it any credence, as a Christian lawyer.

Its already evident however, that he PLANNED his assault.
He knew he was breaking the law, knew he was committing a violent act,
knew his victims were random innocents, and knew he was doing wrong.

That certainly establishes legal culpability (mens rea?) in US law.
And the reason it is evidence is that US law doesn't buy the insanity argument,
when events are calculated, planned and executed over extended times.

You should admit he's not legally insane, and you should question
any pronouncement of 'moral' insanity, whatever that is supposed to mean.

The Biblical law holds murderers guilty regardless of the explanations
of a few unbelieving and/or non-Christian 'theorists' like Freud.

This goofball said he put the Nazi bit up to protest Nazi like behavior on the part of the entities who shut it down.

Now if he'd put it up before, different story.

Or, you're just trying to keep that label you want on him stuck there. It doesn't make sense that he'd suddenly care about neighbors thinking he was a Nazi, AFTER putting up the Nazi bit, unless he wasn't and he meant it to insult the folks who closed him down, just like he said.

I'm just not buying your argument here, for several reasons.
You left out my example (as inconvenient?) but lets review:

I said:

I see no other sign or indication that it is anything but a proud display at the top of the building. No one is going to buy his BS anymore than if a biker clubhouse displayed the Confederate flag on their front door, and 'explained' that the government are 'Southerners' for not letting them sell meth at high schools.

A person condemning the government for over-policing or draconian measures
would normally make a protest, public announcements, or create a sign
to place on his property, expressing loudly and clearly his anger and why.

In this case, the signage or postings should have content to the effect:

"The government are Nazis!" "The Police are Gestapo", or
"Police state: same as Germany 1939!"

He was an articulate radio host and guest speaker with a long history
of radical liberal freedom speeches, and right-wing racism nonsense.

So if he had any message for any member of the public walking by,
we expect it to have a minimum of articulation.

The signs should have looked something like this:

or

But an unadorned Nazi flag at full mast on the front of your house or
place of business is not even an 'ambiguous' message.

It may be a joke, it may be ironic, it may be fake, it may be placed there
for shock value, but its not the message he is claiming.

This example below for instance is NOT irony or humour:

Its a statement of allegiance, or commitment to an ideology,
even if it is mistaken or perverted from the original meaning.

So I have to counter with your own words:

Sorry, but you're reaching. The above is the more likely answer, because it actually jells with the facts.

Only if you're crazy or someone gave you a bad dictionary.

Your "only if" syllogism isn't holding. There are many possible explanations
for my beliefs. Relying on dictionaries or being crazy isn't likely one of them.

You seem to subscribe to theories of "crazy", "insane" etc.
But these are directly incompatible with Christian doctrine and values.

Either start a thread explaining how you reconcile the two opposing
theories (as is required for Bible believers and Evolution), or abandon
the innuendo.

Or, again, is your local and are all pastors pedophiles? Because we have any number of anecdotal "proofs" that many have been.

As a lawyer, its perfectly understandable that you are confusing
'presumption of innocence' (a USA LEGAL concept) with
effective pragmatic approaches for people who have to make what are
possibly life and death decisions OUTSIDE the legal system.

As a believer in the legal principle of law courts "presumption of innocence",
I uphold that 'right' allotted to the accused.

As a father and resident of the real world, I don't apply the same principle
to everyday decisions which don't convict people and imprison them.

For instance, I DO assume pastors are likely to be pedophiles,
and so I DON'T leave my kids in their care unsupervised.

I DO assume CAS workers and other officials are likely running pedophile rings,
so I DON'T hand anyone's kids over to them without compelling evidence
that they are in danger now, and would also be better off in the hands of
strangers.

My safety rules don't require the 'presumption of innocence', because
I'm not sending anyone to jail or imposing the death penalty upon them
without due process, evidence, and a fair trial.

I wrote: So your definition of a pedophile is someone who makes a buck selling beer to teenagers?

Because there's a world of difference between selling beer illegally and molesting children.

Your distinction may be useful in a court of law for sorting out specific charges,
but the basic crime and motive is the same.

People who ply underage kids with drugs are pedophiles,
and/or pedophile enablers.

A pedophile enabler is also a pedophile.

I would give both the same death sentence under Biblical Law.

Because I'm pretty sure he was paid and there's nothing else that tells me it was about anything else. No conviction for child porn, molestation, etc.

Again the evidence contradicts you.
There was enough evidence of his allowing underage drug use on the premises
to have his licence revoked, presumably by a judge.

Thats evidence of compliance with underage drug abuse,
and plying minors with drugs is evidence of pedophilia.

Maybe you should stick to the facts and let them speak.

They've already spoken.

It really isn't. And it really isn't rational to think that because you've seen a dozen fires most of the world is blazing.

I'm not the one extending my local clinical experience and presenting it
as statistical proof of a global situation.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/24/inside-the-mind-of-john-russel-houser.html

That doesnt say he was a tea party member.

 

[Town Heretic]

I know the sanity/insanity thing is great for lawyers as a plea, but I don't buy psychiatry or psychology, because I already have an adequate explanation for bad behaviour: Sin, and the Bible.

It really isn't an either/or, science or faith. That's just what zealots from either camp sell and I suspect for much the same reason.

It disturbs me that you give it any credence, as a Christian lawyer.

Science? Why? I was only just writing to anna about a fairly famous Christian who was also a Harvard trained physician and a psychiatrist, M. Scott Peck. He wrote about evil and even took on the subject of demonic possession, which he believed in. Like I said, it isn't an either/or.

Its already evident however, that he PLANNED his assault. He knew he was breaking the law, knew he was committing a violent act, knew his victims were random innocents, and knew he was doing wrong. That certainly establishes legal culpability(mens rea?) in US law. And the reason it is evidence is that US law doesn't buy the insanity argument, when events are calculated, planned and executed over extended times.

He's dead, so it's a moot point, but the insanity defense is a hard sell. At the state level not all allow for it. Idaho, Montana and a couple others won't allow the defense. Those that do tend to follow the M'Naghten Rule. That's how it is in Alabama and the burden is on the defense to establish the satisfaction. Here's how the rule came out of the House of Lords, after

"Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

You should admit he's not legally insane, and you should question any pronouncement of 'moral' insanity, whatever that is supposed to mean.

The ability to plan and carry out a plan doesn't in and of itself establish sanity. For instance, you have an office next door to a bakery. You become convinced, through mental defect, that the odors of bread are actually laced with a mind controlling substance and that the baker is subtly attempting to make you his mind slave in preparation for some apocalyptic confrontation.

So you're crazy as a bedbug, BUT, you plan to do away with him before he can complete his gassy plan and do so.

The Biblical law holds murderers guilty regardless of the explanations of a few unbelieving and/or non-Christian 'theorists' like Freud.

I don't agree with you, but it isn't necessary that I do on the point.

I'm just not buying your argument here, for several reasons.
You left out my example (as inconvenient?) but lets review:
I said: I see no other sign or indication that it is anything but a proud display at the top of the building.

A proud display would be one that you'd expect to see a) while the building/bar was actually being used and drawing patrons and b) a thing evidenced by prior conduct.

Absent that we have his stated. He was framing the closing of his business as the act of a Nazi like regime.

A person condemning the government for over-policing or draconian measures would normally make a protest, public announcements, or create a sign to place on his property, expressing loudly and clearly his anger and why.

You mean a rational person. Crazy or hate filled people don't behave like most people. They put Nazi stuff on buildings, either to promote their own agenda or denounce someone else's.

In this case, the signage or postings should have content to the effect:"The government are Nazis!" "The Police are Gestapo", or
"Police state: same as Germany 1939!"

I'd agree that would be a stronger statement. But this one got people asking, which put our nutter/killer where he wanted to be, in the eye of someone. This is a fellow who sat down with complete strangers to start conversations about himself. Doesn't surprise me at all.

...an unadorned Nazi flag at full mast on the front of your house or place of business is not even an 'ambiguous' message.

On the face of a closed/defunct business. It invites, "Why did you put that there?" Which allows him an audience to spew for, a spotlight. This man craved relevance.

So I have to counter with your own words:

No, you're having to read in to make yours work. I'm only having to read. He told us why he did it and it jells with who he was, with his penchant for blaming others and his way of framing opposition in the worst light possible. It also brought the attention back to him, which was in keeping with what we can understand of his nature.

Or we can agree with you and believe a man who demonstrably didn't care what others thought for a moment did just that and attempted to hide an association you believe he felt strongly enough about to hang evidence of on a building.

That simply doesn't add up, has internal contradictions that are hard to miss and harder to reconcile.

Your "only if" syllogism isn't holding. There are many possible explanations for my beliefs. Relying on dictionaries or being crazy isn't likely one of them.

It wasn't offered exhaustively, only a way of noting my posit that your thinking on the point isn't rational, is at best indicative of someone lacking an important understanding of how rules are established and what exceptions look like within a statistical model.

You seem to subscribe to theories of "crazy", "insane" etc. But these are directly incompatible with Christian doctrine and values.

I think that's unsustainable too. People in Biblical days understood that not every odd act was rooted in demonology.

Either start a thread explaining how you reconcile the two opposing theories (as is required for Bible believers and Evolution), or abandon the innuendo.

I don't find conflict. Supra.

As a lawyer, its perfectly understandable that you are confusing 'presumption of innocence' (a USA LEGAL concept) with
effective pragmatic approaches for people who have to make what are
possibly life and death decisions OUTSIDE the legal system.

I'm not confused. I'm speaking to the law. Effective pragmatic approaches? Sounds like anarchy. Good luck with that.

I DO assume pastors are likely to be pedophiles, and so I DON'T leave my kids in their care unsupervised.

I'm sorry Naz, but that's irrational. Assuming the worst may prevent you from experiencing the worst, but while it may make it effective it doesn't make it reasonable. Most pastor, lawyers, policemen, etc. aren't pedophiles and there's no justification for assuming the contrary. Most people aren't pedophiles. There's a line between reasonable precaution and unreasonable paranoia.

People who ply underage kids with drugs are pedophiles, and/or pedophile enablers.

Ply has a different connotation from sell. We know he allowed them to purchase alcohol. How many or how often or if it was as simple as not checking IDs...that we don't have before us.

A pedophile enabler is also a pedophile.
I would give both the same death sentence under Biblical Law.

Which law is that?

Again the evidence contradicts you.

Again usually means "as before" but you haven't actually set out a contradiction between anything I've written and objective evidence, so you're starting off on the wrong foot.

There was enough evidence of his allowing underage drug use on the premises to have his licence revoked, presumably by a judge.

Undisputed.

Thats evidence of compliance with underage drug abuse, and plying minors with drugs is evidence of pedophilia.

And no. That's just you declaring a thing you haven't established in conclusion and your premise is a little misleading, because plying isn't typically used to note selling. We may ply a trade, but more typically women are plied with alcohol toward an end, that sort of thing. You don't attach the same suspicion to selling that you do to plying.

I'm not the one extending my local clinical experience and presenting it as statistical proof of a global situation.

But you are when you state that lawyers are X, etc. That's precisely what you're doing.

:e4e:

 

[User Name]

That doesnt say he was a tea party member.

Another link: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...y-leader-you-are-communicating-with-a-weirdo/

He did attempt establish a connection, but it appears he was not successful.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Another link: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...y-leader-you-are-communicating-with-a-weirdo/

He did attempt establish a connection, but it appears he was not successful.

In other words, he wasnt. So i would still like to know where shag got that from.

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear Town:

First, a few legal points that seem to be sloshing about but should be nailed down:

You confirmed the basis of the "insanity plea" in law with the following:

"Every man is...presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved..."

Then you stated, "The ability to plan and carry out a plan doesn't in and of itself establish sanity...."

The point is, its you who plainly needs to establish INsanity.
I don't have to prove sanity.

Secondly, to succeed in proving insanity,
you first have to prove that "insanity" even exists
as a scientific concept that has a physical reality.

Just because figures of speech are common, even in courtrooms,
or even scientific discussions at mental hospitals, doesn't demonstrate
any scientific validity whatever.

But you just jump ahead to calling a whole gaggle of vague notions
as "science". Its incredible that you as a lawyer would think that
this is acceptable proof of concept.

"irrational", "insane", "Crazy or hate filled people", "crazy as a bedbug"

These are not scientific nor quantifiable terms....

You offer a "Christian" doctor who has a psychiatry degree,
but who also apparently believes in demons,
as some kind of corroboration that psychiatry is a "science" [sic!].

You seem unaware that the vast majority of psychiatrists would
classify belief in Christianity as a delusion, as well as belief in demons
of any kind, and that furthermore most scientists would call the very
notion of 'demons' a primitive concept from the Dim Times.

So what you have then presented will be minority of minorities position,
presumably that psychiatry is some kind (soft?) 'science'.

But I can assure you that most scientists DON'T hold that view,
even if most psychiatrists DO at least try to make the claim.

For over a century psychiatry has been rigidly held to the basic premises
and theorizing, hypothesizing, and wild guessing of Freud and followers,
(Jung, another semi-founder was a notorious Spiritist-flake!).

But the only reason ANYONE who is an atheist or agnostic gives Freud
any credence whatever is that they have no "rational" alternative,
once Christianity and other Judaeo-Christian or middle-Eastern religions
have been dismissed as 'spiritist nonsense' and self-delusion.

In other words, psychiatry achieved its position historically because
rich Western idiots had and still have no viable philosophy or worldview
to replace Christian beliefs. So Freud, a moronic atheist cocaine-head,
won by default and holds the ring forever.

Psychiatry was established in what is essentially the "pre-science" era,
or at least the mere 'childhood' of science.

Everyone knows its a bankrupt farce that has never cured anyone,
never correctly categorized any mental illnesses,
and most importantly never predicted a single "crazy person's" behaviour.
but atheists and agnostics everywhere have felt the need for 'some'
kind of science of the mind or brain, and this is all they have.

Its true that the 20th century upstart 'psychology' is making a play for
the position of 'scientists of the mind and brain' but besides
a few ill-constructed experiments in optical illusions and animal behaviours,
they also are bankrupt of any viable theory of the brain, consciousness,
even the science of belief and human thinking.

Good luck demonstrating that Freudean Psychiatry has any foundation in
anything resembling 'science' if by that you mean measurable experiments,
and scientific theories.

But if you do classify psychiatry as some kind of 'soft' science,
at least acknowledge that they are not only not on your team
(team Christianity) but are openly avowed enemies of your religious beliefs.

It doesn't bolster your argument when the authorities you are relying on
would classify you yourself as 'delusional'.

You should also consider however, that most real scientists, i.e., physicists,
view 'psychiatry' as a joke.

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear Town: (legal point 2)

I'm not confused. I'm speaking to the law. Effective pragmatic approaches? Sounds like anarchy.

No. I think you really are confused from a rational, logical standpoint.

You acknowledge that "the presumption of innocence" is a legal and viable approach.

Why?

We hold to that notion because most people believe that it is more 'rational'
to risk a few criminals temporarily escaping than to have
innocent men wrongfully accused, convicted and their lives destroyed.
This doesn't only apply to the death penalty, because 10 years in jail
can ruin a marriage, business or career as easily as a hanging.

But there are actually three basic positions on the scales there:

(1) maximize convictions, ensuring that few guilty will go free.

(2) balance convictions and releases, sacrificing some both guilty and innocent.

(3) maximize releases, ensuring that most innocent are not punished.


Naturally however, advocates of all three strategies can present rational
and even statistical arguments in favour of each plan or tendency.

But I don't at the moment want to 'prove' or advocate the viability of any
basic option.

In actual law practice, the public is led to BELIEVE in the choice by
law courts (police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges) of the value of
"innocent until proven guilty" while the courts execute their own version
of "justice" according to their own sensibilites and moral standards,
and the public rarely finds out how naive and deluded they are about it,
until they find themselves in a courtroom or see something like the O.J. Simpson or M. Jackson trial on TV.

...

Instead I want to simply demonstrate the identical logic behind my own
strategy which you have wrongly called "irrational":

I also have a choice of strategies:

(1) Maximize "fun and freedom" functions for my own children,
and hope that they personally won't become a crime statistic.

(2) Find a balance between "fun" and "safety" and place my bets
in a more conservative manner than (1).

(3) Maximize "safety" in a dangerous world.


This is a very simple and basic "Game Theory" problem.

The first question is, "What is the payoff?"

Just as in say a nuclear war scenario, the personal cost,
of say having my child tortured, raped and murdered
might be simply FAR TOO HIGH a Risk factor for me to opt for (1) or (2).

So it is perfectly rational to opt for (3), although
people might complain about being 'not allowed to do anything'.

Who then would argue for (2), or even (1)?

I propose that a person who believes in RANDOM CHANCE
might rationally opt for (2), hoping for a good compromise between
"fun" and "safety" according to limited information.

The Game Theory analysis predicts that this might be a good choice,
in spite of increased risk of a catastrophic 'payoff'.

But this simply is not an option for Christians who believe in a living God,
who observes and often interferes with world events and history.
The classical Christian view would find the (2) option to be 'irrational'
in the face of the existence of the Biblical God.

What about (1)?

Perhaps an unusual Christian would, like martyrs of old, risk all,
and have no 'safety' plan at all. His children could go to Disneyworld
unsupervised, attend Rock Concerts and drug parties, and all will be
addressed by a few prayers, confidently said.

But that would require a faith very unusual in two ways:

(a) God will protect my children no matter what they do.

They can skydive, experiment with Scientology, smoke crack
and all will be well, working to the greatest good to those who love God.

(b) I would have no problem putting OTHERS at risk if I am wrong
about my 'faith' and understanding about what God would want me to do
as a responsible and prudent parent.

The problem should be obvious: I'm now not only acting as a classic martyr,
risking only myself, but needlessly and shamelessly putting others at risk
who may not even be Christians, and who might not actually have the
miraculous protection from God that I think I have as a strong Christian believer.

Now I would put it to you that this is not a real option,
even for a Bible believing Christian, because it is very similar to
those who deliberately handle poisonous snakes until eventually they
die of snakebites.

Faith isn't everything. Humility is also important,
such as sensible assessments about your own faith and belief.

Responsibility is also important, such as sensible precautions to
protect those you have authority over, like children.

Thus I shouldn't have to argue even that any one strategy is the best
Christian strategy, but rather my only point here, is that:

Many strategies which you might not personally accept and perform for
your own children may be just as rational on a large and level playing field,
and in the big picture, as your own choice.

Ultimately, I must choose what I think is best for those under my care,
and whom I'm accountable for, and so must you.

I'm not saying your choices, which are apparently different,
are "irrational" out of hand.

I would like to hear your arguments for your choices,
and compare them to my arguments for my choices.

How is that "irrational"?

Are you really being fair here?

Ball your 'court' ...

 

[Town Heretic]

....You confirmed the basis of the "insanity plea" in law with the following:

No, I don't think that was me...I remember writing that the onus was on the defendant here, which is the case in most jurisdictions where that particular rule is in play, that it's a hard sell. The presumption is innocence before the law.

Then you stated, The ability to plan and carry out a plan doesn't in and of itself establish sanity....

Again, did I use those words exactly? But my point was you appeared to have noted his sanity was demonstrated by his having planned the act. And my response was to note that you can be crazy and still plan things.

The point is, its you who plainly needs to establish INsanity. I don't have to prove sanity.

Neither of us have to...but declaring him sane isn't any more reasonable than declaring him incompetent. Like I said to Stripe on the other killing, that's an issue to be raised and considered.

Secondly, to succeed in proving insanity, you first have to prove that "insanity" even exists as a scientific concept that has a physical reality.

Well, no. That's not really debated reasonably anywhere.

Just because figures of speech are common, even in courtrooms, or even scientific discussions at mental hospitals, doesn't demonstrate any scientific validity whatever.

If it's a recognized medical term and incorporated into law with standard for producing proof...it really does have meaning. How you feel about it is another matter and completely your business.

But you just jump ahead to calling a whole gaggle of vague notions as "science".

If by "you" you mean the foremost part of academicians, scientists and lawmakers in the history of the nation...yeah, sure. That's it.

Its incredible that you as a lawyer would think that this is acceptable proof of concept.

Rather, my understanding would be a reflection of the existence of the term and the history of proofs and treatments within disparate disciplines, noted above.

"irrational", "insane", "Crazy or hate filled people", "crazy as a bedbug" These are not scientific nor quantifiable terms....

Well, they weren't offered as scientific jargon. But irrational is a logically demonstrable term that can rest on science, as when I call your assertion that all lawyers are pedophiles in days past as irrational. It can literally, demonstrably be settled that that's not reasonably, rationally supportable.

You offer a "Christian" doctor who has a psychiatry degree, but who also apparently believes in demons, as some kind of corroboration that psychiatry is a "science"[sic!].

No, I offered it in rebuttal to your apparent science or faith contention. He's an example of someone who was trained in the medical sciences, became a mental health practitioner and found no conflict between that and his faith.

You seem unaware that the vast majority of psychiatrists would classify belief in Christianity as a delusion,

I can't be unaware of a thing that hasn't been demonstrated to exist outside of your noggin. Show it to me on the DSM and we'll talk.

as well as belief in demons of any kind, and that furthermore most scientists would call the very notion of 'demons' a primitive concept from the Dim Times.

Maybe they would. I don't know and you haven't offered anything to move me to believe it. Wouldn't alter my point that there are demonstrably men and women of distinction within the discipline who find no conflict between faith and its practice. That is to say, the conflict is created, not inherent.

In other words, psychiatry achieved its position historically because rich Western idiots had and still have no viable philosophy or worldview to replace Christian beliefs. So Freud, a moronic atheist cocaine-head, won by default and holds the ring forever.

I think all you've demonstrated is that you're conflating psychiatry with philosophy and humanism, among other contextually competing notions are the inheritors of traditional religious thinking among a section of academia.

That said, most professors profess a belief in God.

Nevertheless, atheists and agnostics are in the minority among professors as a whole. 19.6 percent of respondents to our survey agree with the statement, “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind.” More surprising, while only 4.4 percent of respondents agree with the statement, “I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others,” 16.9
percent are of the view that “while I have my doubts, I feel that I do believe in God,” and 35.7 percent of respondents say, “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it.” How Religious Are America's College and University Professors, by Neil Gross, assistant professor of sociology at Harvard University, and Solon Simmons, assistant professor of conflict analysis and sociology at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.​

Everyone knows its a bankrupt farce that has never cured anyone, never correctly categorized any mental illnesses, and most importantly never predicted a single "crazy person's" behaviour.

No, but I can understand why you'd want to see it that way.

Good luck demonstrating that Freudean Psychiatry has any foundation in anything resembling 'science' if by that you mean measurable experiments, and scientific theories.

Why would I want to do that, again?

But if you do classify psychiatry as some kind of 'soft' science, at least acknowledge that they are not only not on your team (team Christianity) but are openly avowed enemies of your religious beliefs.

I think that's just made up nonsense so I don't feel obligated to legitimize it because it fits into your angry, insular perspective.

It doesn't bolster your argument when the authorities you are relying on would classify you yourself as 'delusional'.

Which you've declared but haven't actually proven is the case.

You should also consider however, that most real scientists, i.e., physicists, view 'psychiatry' as a joke.

Also not established, though it does indicate that you might be a Big Bang fan. lain:

 

[Nazaroo]

Note to Town:

I'm going to leave off showing that most psychiatrists are non-Christians
and that they are actually atheist/agnostics for a separate thread.

I'm going to also show that most other hard-core scientists don't view
such 'soft' academic studies as real science in another thread.

Rather than get bogged down with the issue of lawyers,
I'm going to concede that his being a 'lawyer wannabe' may be
irrelevant to his actions and categorization here.



Here I want to stick to the main discussion, and leave the following questions
on the table for better answers:

(1) Was the shooter a racist, right-wing fanatic, and essentially therefore a 'neo-nazi'?

And I think the evidence will bear out that he was indeed a racist.

I suggest that a racist who sports a Nazi flag on his place of business is indeed a neo-Nazi of some sort, whatever double-talk he offered to explain away the flag, and whatever the timing of his display. That timing may indicate his radicalization timeline more than his (possibly changing) ideology and (flawed) reasoning process,
which I believe won't be all that useful.


(2) I do think that the fact he was a pedophile is still very relevant to the discussion.

We can start with a discussion of the definition of 'pedophile' and why I include selling drugs to minors.

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear Town:

Still hoping for a response and your corrections for post #36...

 

[rexlunae]

Also not established, though it does indicate that you might be a Big Bang fan. lain:

They wouldn't put it on TV if it weren't true...