eyeball Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 You also said that he was the perpetrator of a heinous crime "due to religion". You won't find anything in the assessment, treatment or subsequent handling of Li's case that suggests this - not even remotely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, eyeball said: You also said that he was the perpetrator of a heinous crime "due to religion". You won't find anything in the assessment, treatment or subsequent handling of Li's case that suggests this - not even remotely. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that! What he did was heinous! Whether he's insane or not....it was still heinous! Have you ever heard of anyone getting beheaded in a bus in Canada? And who said anything about the particulars of his assessment??? Here, read it again. Page 47: Quote Canada tends to get a psychological assessments of any perpetrators of heinous crimes! Like that guy who beheaded a man in a Greyhound bus. It seemed it was due to religion (which it was in a way), but apparently he is insane. So, there. We know who the insane are..... There. I said he's insane! Somebody claiming to be the second coming of Christ, killing "aliens" because of it - of course it is religion-related! He even mentioned Christ! Anyone with a brain doesn't even need an assessment to know that his delusion is related to religion! You better understand what you read. Edited December 16, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 2 hours ago, betsy said: Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that! You did so, right here. Quote ...perpetrators of heinous crimes! Like that guy who beheaded a man in a Greyhound bus. ...due to religion... Quote You better understand what you read. I understand perfectly well what you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 4 hours ago, betsy said: EH? I didn't say religion caused his schizophrenia. His delusion was religion-related. He thought he was the "second coming of Christ." I said, in a way - it has something to do with religion! That's what I've said.....he's insane! A schizophrenic's delusions often contain elements or contexts that exist in the world including anything from religion and their symbols to cartoon characters. They mean nothing other than perhaps as an indicator of the underlying illness i.e. they sound plain nuts. It doesn't matter what they think it 's how and why their brain isn't working properly that's at issue such as a chemical imbalance or actual organic damage to physical parts of the brain. These have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Nothing whatsoever. These do however have a lot to do with determining illness instead of heinous criminality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, eyeball said: A schizophrenic's delusions often contain elements or contexts that exist in the world including anything from religion and their symbols to cartoon characters. They mean nothing other than perhaps as an indicator of the underlying illness i.e. they sound plain nuts. It doesn't matter what they think it 's how and why their brain isn't working properly that's at issue such as a chemical imbalance or actual organic damage to physical parts of the brain. These have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Nothing whatsoever. These do however have a lot to do with determining illness instead of heinous criminality. READ MY LIPS: I said, it was religion-related! Specifically, Christian-related. See your first sentence? You said it yourself! Quote eyeball A schizophrenic's delusions often contain elements or contexts that exist in the world including anything from religion and their symbols to cartoon characters. In Li's case, his delusions was from a Christian context - about Christ and the second coming! He is a Christian too, from what I understand! Whether he was insane or not, what he committed was still heinous, and a crime. The only difference was that he wasn't found guilty since he was deemed insane at the time he committed the act! Quote When defendants plead not guilty by reason of insanity, they are asserting an affirmative defense—that is, they admit that they committed a criminal act, but seek to excuse their behavior by reason of mental illness that satisfies the definition of legal insanity. People who are adjudged to have been insane at the time they committed a crime are neither legally nor morally guilty. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/pleading-insanity-a-criminal-defense-case You can't even understand a simple statement from me (you took it out of context). Heck, you can't even tell and understand that you contradict yourself .....and you expect me to take your extrapolation of what you could've "understood" from a medical journal, or whatever it is you've read??? No, thanks. I'll pass. I'm not insane. Edited December 17, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 9 hours ago, betsy said: READ MY LIPS: I said, it was religion-related! Specifically, Christian-related. I don't care what you think your lips said, what you specifically wrote however was; due to religion. I'm not insane. No, you're conservative. At least schizophrenia is a treatable condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 Folks, Please avoid personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 Does attack include a bald faced lie to someone's face? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 34 minutes ago, eyeball said: Does attack include a bald faced lie to someone's face? Yes if it derails the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altai Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 I am going to share chocolate cake recipe in this topic. No its not off-topic according to the mods. Those who believe and follow Islam are called Muslims >>> Turks are Muslims >>> We have chocolate cake in Turkiye >>> We eat it >>> Islam = Chocolate cake. Its on-topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) Thanks for that Charles. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the forum rules. Edited December 17, 2016 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 The point being that if you derail a discussion with a personal attack upon an argument, then you should expect moderator intervention to stop it. It can be deduced from the other rules. SHORT VERSION: Nobody cares about eyeBallToBetsy bickering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 Why exactly is pointing out a liar wrong again? Do we need to be more facetious or something? What's wrong with being forthright and direct about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 It derails and gets tiresome and boring. Say it once perhaps and move on. Repeating is a derail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 17, 2016 Report Share Posted December 17, 2016 I did say it once but Michael deleted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 Quote Merging the "this week in ..." religion threads ? Going twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, eyeball said: I don't care what you think your lips said, what you specifically wrote however was; due to religion. There is no so-called bald-faced lie. I think you missed this. Just for the record, this was what I posted exactly on page 47: Quote Canada tends to get a psychological assessments of any perpetrators of heinous crimes! Like that guy who beheaded a man in a Greyhound bus. It seemed it was due to religion (which it was in a way), but apparently he is insane. So, there. We know who the insane are..... "Due to religion," is not the same at all as being "religion-related." I can't say for certain that his delusions were exactly due to his religion (although it SEEMED that it was). Li, being a Christian, why can't we logically assume that, in a way, his religion has some bearing on his delusions? However, I can say for certain that they are religion-related (because his delusion was about being Christ in the Second Coming). That explanation should be clear enough. Let's go back to the topic. I was responding to Michael's post: Quote On 12/15/2016 at 8:17 PM, Michael Hardner said: Of violence, insanity, terrorism. Can we have a thread that effectively blames the religion when it's not caused by the religion ? Edited December 18, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 1 hour ago, betsy said: On 12/15/2016 at 8:17 PM, Michael Hardner said: Of violence, insanity, terrorism. Can we have a thread that effectively blames the religion when it's not caused by the religion ? We could but not with you around to muck it all up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Quote Merging the "this week in ..." religion threads ? Going twice. Disagree. This one was set up by Kimmy to specifically highlight the violence and fanaticism of Islam. The other 'this week in religion' was set up by a middle east Muslim who is in denial of the violence and fanaticism of Islam in an attempt to exaggerate such violence elsewhere. As such, it would be satisfying her attempt at derailing this thread. Edited December 18, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 This week in the religion of peace: https://www.google.ca/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38350662 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2016_Istanbul_bombings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botroseya_Church_bombing http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Suicide-bomber-kills-seven-in-Libyas-Benghazi-officials-1001613266 There were a lot of other ones. Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 Muslim Iraqi Businessman erects Christmas tree in solidiarity with Christians - http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslim-businessman-erects-tallest-christmas-tree-solidarity-iraqi-christians/ Muslim group in Washington hands out 1000 Christmas dinners to needy: http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslims-hand-1000-holiday-turkey-meals-needy-families/ British Muslims spearhead international peace initiative: https://www.journalism.co.uk/press-releases/british-muslims-in-international-peace-initiative/s66/a696157/ Abu Dhabi forum promotes peace, denies caliphate and centuries old political system for Islam http://www.thenational.ae/uae/heritage/peace-must-be-path-for-muslims-abu-dhabi-forum-hears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Argus said: Disagree. This one was set up by Kimmy to specifically highlight the violence and fanaticism of Islam. The other 'this week in religion' was set up by a middle east Muslim who is in denial of the violence and fanaticism of Islam in an attempt to exaggerate such violence elsewhere. As such, it would be satisfying her attempt at derailing this thread. It was setup to encourage prejudice and hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 I have no problem merging the two. Both threads have deteriorated so might as well have deterioration combined in one thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said: It was setup to encourage prejudice and hate. No it wasn't. Finding fault with disgusting and barbaric religious practices is neither prejudicial nor hateful. Not finding fault with them might be. Edited December 18, 2016 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted December 18, 2016 Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, bcsapper said: No it wasn't. Finding fault with disgusting and barbaric religious practices is neither prejudicial nor hateful. Not finding fault with them might be. The thread deteriorated to encourage hatred of all Muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.