Who is more dangerous?

joshua 1 9 · Jun 24, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
Sure. Only a crazy person would build large concrete flower gardens in the middle of residential street intersections that frustrate traffic (including city snow plows), yet those who do it aren't crazy.

I am not so sure of that. It's common to stereotype engineers as people that are drunk or high on drugs. Their main criteria is not sanity, it's simply the ability to be able to do the math.

bhsmte · Jun 24, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I am not so sure of that. It's common to stereotype engineers as people that are drunk or high on drugs. Their main criteria is not sanity, it's simply the ability to be able to do the math.

That is a new one on me; engineers being stereo typed as people that are drunk or high on drugs???

Where did you get that from?

joshua 1 9 · Jun 24, 2015

bhsmte said:
Where did you get that from?

Some guy wearing a tee shirt that said: "No I will not fix your computer".

bhsmte · Jun 24, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Some guy wearing a tee shirt that said: "No I will not fix your computer".

Sounds like a reliable source.

crjmurray · Jun 24, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I am not so sure of that. It's common to stereotype engineers as people that are drunk or high on drugs. Their main criteria is not sanity, it's simply the ability to be able to do the math.

That's a weird stereotype.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 24, 2015

BeachSun said:
So am I normal or nutty if I dress up my cats and reenact Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew?

A rhetorical question if I ever heard one.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 24, 2015

crjmurray said:
That's a weird stereotype.

It's kind of a standard joke around here because both of my son's are engineering students. We look at something and laugh about how whoever designed that thing must have been high on drugs. Also I have heard people say I will wish I had 5 minutes in a back alley with whatever idiot designed that thing. Of course now a days so many students take prescription drugs to help them study so that it is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

crjmurray · Jun 24, 2015

BeachSun said:
So am I normal or nutty if I dress up my cats and reenact Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew?

You are hilarious, the third category.

crjmurray · Jun 24, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
It's kind of a standard joke around here because both of my son's are engineering students. We look at something and laugh about how whoever designed that thing must have either been during or high on drugs. Also I have heard people say I will wish I had 5 minutes in a back alley with whatever idiot designed that thing.

That's nice. I wouldn't really qualify that as a stereotype though.

quatona · Jun 25, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
That's my observation. What's yours?

That´s not an observation. It´s your classification.

Catherineanne · Jun 25, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Care to elaborate?

An example would be nice.

All of the accused at Nuremberg were found to be sane. They were a dangerous lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

DogmaHunter · Jun 25, 2015

Catherineanne said:
All of the accused at Nuremberg were found to be sane. They were a dangerous lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

And that's a good example of sane (in the medical/psychiatric meaning of the word) people doing crazy stuff.
How does this prove that sane people are more dangerous then crazy people?

What are we even calling "crazy" here?
Are we talking about the medical kind of "crazy"? Like people suffering from psychosis or alike?
Or are we talking about the beliefs kind of "crazy"? Like fundamentalists blowing up clinics that perform abortions or flying airplanes into buildings?

If "sane" simply means "healthy", then I'ld say that it's kind of a given that "sane" people are more dangerous.
For the simple reason that the chaotic mind of a schizofrenic will (in most cases) not be able to plan for things like the nazi holocaust, the 9/11 attacks or the clinic bombing by McVeigh.

Then again, that's not how interpreted the post I was replying to.

So to conclude, if by "crazy" is meant "psychiatric patients" then I agree that "sane" people are more dangerous (for obvious reasons).
If we aren't talking about the medical version of "crazy", then we're going to have to define the term "crazy".

In a non-medical context, I most certainly would call Hitler, Goebels, Rommel, Bin Laden, McVeigh, the Phelps, etc... batpoo-crazy!

Catherineanne · Jun 25, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
And that's a good example of sane (in the medical/psychiatric meaning of the word) people doing crazy stuff.
How does this prove that sane people are more dangerous then crazy people?

What are we even calling "crazy" here?
Are we talking about the medical kind of "crazy"? Like people suffering from psychosis or alike?
Or are we talking about the beliefs kind of "crazy"? Like fundamentalists blowing up clinics that perform abortions or flying airplanes into buildings?

If "sane" simply means "healthy", then I'ld say that it's kind of a given that "sane" people are more dangerous.
For the simple reason that the chaotic mind of a schizofrenic will (in most cases) not be able to plan for things like the nazi holocaust, the 9/11 attacks or the clinic bombing by McVeigh.

Then again, that's not how interpreted the post I was replying to.

So to conclude, if by "crazy" is meant "psychiatric patients" then I agree that "sane" people are more dangerous (for obvious reasons).
If we aren't talking about the medical version of "crazy", then we're going to have to define the term "crazy".

In a non-medical context, I most certainly would call Hitler, Goebels, Rommel, Bin Laden, McVeigh, the Phelps, etc... batpoo-crazy!

Speaking as someone with a longstanding mental health condition I would very much prefer people not to use terms like 'crazy' at all. As you have demonstrated, it is pretty well meaningless as a word. It is also highly offensive to anyone struggling to find normality in a very challenging life.

Such words are not applicable to mass murderers, as evidenced at Nuremberg, and they are unkind to say the least when addressed to people such as myself. I suggest we ditch the disparaging language and keep to terms we can define and which have an accepted meaning.

Psychopathy is a very real condition, but none of those at Nuremberg were psychopaths. They were not suffering from any mental illness. Like it or not they were sane, rational, reasonable people, as well as being genocidal mass murderers. And they were hanged because of it.

We cannot divide the world into 'them' - the crazy people and 'us' - the sane. There but for the grace of God go any one of us.

DogmaHunter · Jun 25, 2015

Catherineanne said:
Speaking as someone with a longstanding mental health condition I would very much prefer people not to use terms like 'crazy' at all.

Certainly and I'm sorry to hear that you suffer from such a condition. I hope that it doesn't have too much an impact on your life.

I have far to much first-hand experience with psychosis then I'ld like to. I haven't suffered from it, but several people close to me have. I have no words to describe how bad it can get.

One of them told me at one point that if he could choose between a terrible cancer and psychosis - he'ld choose the cancer. That says everything.

Ever since, I have been very carefull with the word "crazy". But other people don't make the disctinction between "crazy" and "sick". That's why I had to ask for clarity.

Again, I appologise if I've hurt your feelings. That was certainly not my goal.

Psychopathy is a very real condition, but none of those at Nuremberg were psychopaths. They were not suffering from any mental illness. Like it or not they were sane, rational, reasonable people, as well as being genocidal mass murderers. And they were hanged because of it.

I'm not quite that confident that these people didn't have psyhchopathic / sociopathic tendencies.

What most certainly is not true, is that these people were rational and/or reasonable.
The 9/11 hijackers were sane as well. In the medical sense.
But I don't see how they could be called rational or reasonable, without raping those words.

We cannot divide the world into 'them' - the crazy people and 'us' - the sane. There but for the grace of God go any one of us.

Well, we can .... but the problem is that, most likely, each side will consider themselves to be the "sane" ones and the others to be the "crazy" ones.

pshun2404 · Jun 25, 2015

Aside from physical/neurological abnormalities, "crazy" is a relative term. Einstein was way outside the "norm" of the standard bell curve but he was not "crazy" (neither was he mentally ill that we know of). The atheist Hitler killed his 6 million, the atheist Stalin his 20 million, and the atheist Mao his 65 million but as "crazy" as this seems they were not insane...I guess commonsense is just not all that common! Whenever people decide to want to lord over others (do it their way), whether religionists or not, conflict arises...but that's because so many others insist on being their own lord as well. It is what we call partaking of the fruit of the tree (Genesis 3:5).

The second tier of error is when all the "self" lords get together and insist that via consensus we can all fix the problem, that is until another group of "self" lords arise whose consensus disagrees with theirs. And so it has been and ever shall be...(until the parousia). The Consensus approach has ruled for almost a century now and things have not really changed...their is still starvation, greed, power mongering, rape (physical and psychological), murder, war, and so on. It eill only end when "self" is dethroned.

bhsmte · Jun 25, 2015

Catherineanne said:
All of the accused at Nuremberg were found to be sane. They were a dangerous lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

Sane, for the purpose of trial, does not mean someone does not have a psychological disorder, it just means they are "sane" enough to stand trial and know what is going on.

Anyone in the Nuremburg trials was someone who certainly lacked empathy for other human beings and certainly did so to abnormal psychological levels. One would have to lack empathy to carry out what they did. How that lack of empathy came to be, is another story all together. Brain washing, significant pressure from military orders and the fear that comes from disobeying and or some were likely just psychologically disordered.

Mr Strawberry · Jun 25, 2015

Most people can be 'persuaded' to perform atrocities if they feel someone else is taking responsibility for the action. This was shown in the famous Milgram experiment where ordinary members of the public were persuaded to issue electric shocks to a recipient hidden behind a screen right up to and beyond levels they thought would kill the recipient.

I imagine most nazis involved in committing atrocities of one sort or another in world war 2 had some sort of rationale that absolved them of responsibilty in their own mind.

bhsmte · Jun 25, 2015

Mr Strawberry said:
Most people can be 'persuaded' to perform atrocities if they feel someone else is taking responsibility for the action. This was shown in the famous Milgram experiment where ordinary members of the public were persuaded to issue electric shocks to a recipient hidden behind a screen right up to and beyond levels they thought would kill the recipient.

I imagine most nazis involved in committing atrocities of one sort or another in world war 2 had some sort of rationale that absolved them of responsibilty in their own mind.

Well stated, I agree.

Catherineanne · Jun 25, 2015

Mr Strawberry said:
Most people can be 'persuaded' to perform atrocities if they feel someone else is taking responsibility for the action. This was shown in the famous Milgram experiment where ordinary members of the public were persuaded to issue electric shocks to a recipient hidden behind a screen right up to and beyond levels they thought would kill the recipient.

I imagine most nazis involved in committing atrocities of one sort or another in world war 2 had some sort of rationale that absolved them of responsibilty in their own mind.

Of course. The point is, all of that is sane. None of it would count as insane.

Catherineanne · Jun 25, 2015

bhsmte said:
Sane, for the purpose of trial, does not mean someone does not have a psychological disorder, it just means they are "sane" enough to stand trial and know what is going on.

Anyone in the Nuremburg trials was someone who certainly lacked empathy for other human beings and certainly did so to abnormal psychological levels. One would have to lack empathy to carry out what they did. How that lack of empathy came to be, is another story all together. Brain washing, significant pressure from military orders and the fear that comes from disobeying and or some were likely just psychologically disordered.

They were not psychologically disordered. Neither were they just sane enough. They were sane.

Who is more dangerous?

Who is more troublesome?

Crazy people that do crazy things.

Sane people that do crazy things.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

The Bear. Not The Bull.

The Bear. Not The Bull.

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads