"GO CHENEY YOURSELF" DEMOCRATIC ANGER COUNTER STRATEGY

[Mtnjim]

GO CHENEY YOURSELF" DEMOCRATIC ANGER COUNTER STRATEGY
Add that to the corruption, theft,

election fraud, an there is a case to be made outside of K Street.

Dems Mad as hell and won't take it

anymore.

Seem the direct protest strategy is getting to the Fascists

Imitating Cheney is just the ticket _

they hate themselves



BY BETH FOUHY
Associated Press
February 8,

2006
<http://www.nysun.com/article/27261>http://www.nysun.com/article/27261


NEW YORK (AP) -- The

Republican national chairman created a
furor this week when he suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton is too

"angry" to win the White House in 2008. And
to hear Republicans tell it, Clinton is just one of many
Democrats

with an anger management problem.

Former Vice President Al Gore is angry. So is Senate
Minority Leader Harry

Reid. The party is held hostage by the
"angry left."

In recent months, GOP operatives and officeholders have

cast
the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short
on ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been

effective,
trivializing Democrats' differences with the GOP as
temperamental rather than substantive.

"Angry

people are not nice people. They are people to stay
away from. They explode now and then," said George Lakoff,

a
linguistics professor at the University of California at
Berkeley. His book "Don't Think of an Elephant" has

become
something of a Bible for Democrats trying to improve their
communication with voters.

Political history

is dotted with failed presidential
candidates perceived by the voters as too angry -- think of
Howard Dean's

famous scream in 2004, or Bob Dole admonishing
George H.W. Bush in 1988 to "stop lying about my record."
Both

parties' most revered figures in recent years, Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton, projected optimism and hope.

The

latest example of the anger strategy came Sunday, when
Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said

on
ABC that Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger." He cited
comments she made in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day

in
which she likened the Republican-led House to a "plantation"
and called the Bush administration "one of the

worst" in
history.

"I don't think the American people, if you look
historically, elect angry candidates,"

Mehlman said.

Democrats defended Clinton.

"Democrats want a leader who shares their frustration --
even anger

-- about Republican failures," Democratic
strategist Dan Newman said. "Anger at terrorists is
expected, outrage

about corruption is a plus."

Some Democrats, in fact, complained that Clinton doesn't get
angry enough. Some

also denounced Mehlman as mean-spirited,
and smelled more than a whiff of sexism in his remarks.

"It's the

stereotype of the crone -- angry, nasty, but
powerful," Lakoff said.

RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt dismissed

the charge of
sexism, saying the anger strategy was fully justified when
Democrats launch personal attacks. She

cited Dean's
description of Republicans as "brain dead" last year, and
Reid's calling President Bush a

"loser."

"Whether she's a man or a woman is completely irrelevant. If
some Democrats want to fall back on the

gender card, that's
their prerogative," Schmitt said.

Other examples of the anger strategy abound. Last

summer,
with chief White House political adviser Karl Rove under
investigation in the CIA leak case, Sen. John

Cornyn,
R-Texas, denounced Democrats' criticism of Rove as "more of
the same kind of anger and lashing out that

has become the
substitute for bipartisan action and progress."

Last month, after Gore criticized the president

for
approving warrantless eavesdropping on terror suspects,
Schmitt retorted: "While the president works to

protect
Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of
their own, only diatribes laden with

inaccuracies and anger."

Bush himself touched on the anger theme in his recent State
of the Union Address,

saying: "Our differences cannot be
allowed to harden into anger."

For her part, Clinton -- calmly -- dismissed

Mehlman's
remarks as a diversion from serious issues and the
Republicans' "many failures and

shortcomings."

But even she has employed the anger strategy. Six years ago,
as a Senate candidate in New York,

Clinton questioned the
temperament of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was
expected to be her Republican

opponent.

Giuliani "gets angry very often," Clinton said. "I don't see
the point in getting angry all the time

and expending all
the energy when we could be figuring out a better way to
take care of people."

--
Dan

Clore

[DrSmellThis]

Any time you have one group

completely in power and another on the outs, you're going to have both anger from the less powerful group and an

image of calm control from the group in power -- suggesting the less powerful guy shouldn't be angry because the

powerful one isn't.

You don't need to be angry if you have power, because you're never frustrated.



That is both human nature, and also the unique lack of checks and balances in the current situation.

But

there is a third factor at play here. The outrage people feel these days is not primarily partisan, as much as

neocons and talkshow hosts suggest otherwise. It is patriotic and human. That is certainly true in my own

case.

We have a special situation in history, with so much death based on lies; state-sanctioned torture,

election fraud, utterly insensitive/narcissistic foreign relations; unprecedented government secrecy; civil

liberties being taken away, corporatism; and unprecedented levels of corruption at the highest levels, misuse of

power, greed and powerlust. Add to that a general incompetence, record deficits, increased terrorism, a failure to

get Bin Laden, and lack of professional integrity for doing the job right.

It's not about traditional

Democratic issues versus traditional Republican issues, or liberal versus conservative ideas. Americans of all

political persuasions are becoming increasingly angry. The "angry left" moniker is just the latest talking point to

come out of the neocon propaganda machine, from a group trying to keep and increase their power.

This situation

cannot be resolved without outrage playing a role, although the main thrust of any true solution has to be

peaceful. Effective outrage must be in the service of peace and understanding.

Having said all that, Hillary

does seem a little cold for my taste. We need a big-hearted, self-aware, person of depth to be in charge. But it

ain't about too much outrage.

[a.k.a.]

In recent months,

GOP operatives and officeholders have cast
the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short
on

ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been effective,
trivializing Democrats' differences with the GOP

as
temperamental rather than substantive.

“If you’re not angry, you’re not paying

attention.” (I forget where I got this quote.)

I do think the difference is trivial. But I don't think

the Democrats are angry. On the contrary, I think the Democratic Party is going out of its way to silence some of

the angry voices that have tried to make their issues heard.
First, party leaders pressured Cindy Sheehan

(the mother of a GI that died in Iraq) not to mount a primary campaign against California Senator Diane Feinstein

(who has betrayed practically every principle the Democratic party is supposed to stand for). Then they killed the

campaign of Paul Hackett, an Iraq War vet and Marine reservist who had a strong shot at snatching a Senate seat for

the Democrats this fall in Ohio.
When Hackett announced his intention to run, he met with party leaders, and

with Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown, and won a commitment from Brown not to enter into a primary fight for the Democratic

senate nomination. Later, the party leadership undercut him and had Brown go back on his promise, forcing a primary

battle.
Both of these people (Sheehan & Hacket) have strong grass roots support, take a very principled

position on the war in Iraq, have been tireless in engaging their constituents, and make no effort to hide their

anger with the current administration.

I think Hacket’s recent announcement says volumes about where the

Democratic Party is at right now (and why they will probably continue to lose):

“Today I am announcing that I

am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated

requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my

campaign.

But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for

any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.

I told the voters from

the beginning that I am not a career politician and never aspired to be – that I was about leadership, service and

commitment.

Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take

the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I

meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave.

Thus ends

my 11 month political career. Although it is an overused political cliche, I really will be spending more time with

my family, something I wasn’t able to do because my service to country in the political realm continued after my

return from Iraq. Perhaps my wonderful wife Suzi said it best after we made this decision when she said “Honey,

welcome home.” I really did marry up.

To my friends and supporters, I pledge that I will continue to fight

and to speak out on the issues I believe in. As long as I have the microphone, I will serve as your voice.

It

is with my deepest respect and humility that I thank each and every one of you for the support you extended to our

campaign to take back America, and personally to me and my family. Together we made a difference. We changed the

debate on the Iraq War, we inspired countless veterans to continue their service by running for office as Democrats

and we made people believe again. We must continue to believe.

Remember, we must retool our party. We must do

more than simply aspire to deliver greatness; we must have the commitment and will to fight for what is great about

our party and our country; Peace, prosperity and the freedoms that define our democracy.

Rock on.

Paul

Hackett”

http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsroom/128/thank-you

[Netghost56]

I hate optimistic

politicians. There's a quote for the books.

But seriously, an optimistic politician is also a delirious

politician. Think Dubya: "Freedom's on the march" "The economy is strong" "We're winning".

There's too many

things going wrong, and there's nothing to be happy about. You don't have to be angry about everything, but since

there's so much, just pick one. To me, an angry person is a realist, and a happy person is living in a fantasy

world.

[belgareth]

It is, of course, a matter of

perspective. The economy is getting better. We are still mired in a stupid war. There is bad and good. Happy or

angry is unrealistic. Thoughtful and concerned should be the mode. Acting on emotion rarely solvves anything.

[DrSmellThis]

I agree that acting ONLY on

emotion is generally not the best path.

But keeping oneself cold and emotionless when contemplating the world

also has its dangers. Aristotle often spoke of moderation. I believe one can achieve a healthy balance between mind

and heart, but that a mature passion (e.g., com-passion) is required to fully animate the mind. A related issue is

that we're all angry anyway, so owning up to it is also a good source of information about ourselves and our

beliefs.

Wasn't there about six StarTrek episodes about this?

Whether the economy is getting better is also

a matter of perspective.

[belgareth]

There's nothing wrong with

being happy, glad, sad etc. That's not what I said. And you know enough about me to know I am a compassionate

person who puts a lot of time and energy into helping others.

[DrSmellThis]

Happy or

angry is unrealistic. Thoughtful and concerned should be the mode. Acting on emotion rarely solvves

anything.

So we should feel neither happy nor angry about the state of the nation, then, and should not use

emotions like anger to inform our actions? I really am trying to understand your literal words.

[belgareth]

What you feel is up to you.

Careful analysis and thought before acting is what I am promoting. Neither of us likes King George but I see things

he has done that I like because I am thinking without letting my irritation with him affect my judgement. Other

things he has done have me unhappy.

A former supervisor of mine once asked in exasperation "Don't you ever get

angry?" My reply was that I was angry but it didn' solve the problem so I was ignoring it. Some people say I'm a

cold person but that isn't true. I feel the same things as anybody else. My personality and background have taught

me that to win I need to keep a tight rein on my admittedly bad temper. Almost every time I've let my temper go

I've ended up hurting myself or screwing something up. In something this important I don't intend to do that.

[DrSmellThis]

That is no doubt a laudable

general way to do things for you. I also agree with the careful analysis and thought part, of course.

But,

assuming you have been highly successful at achieving all this, which it sounds like you have, is it possible to

take it a step further, from a warrior's quest point of view?

Given that you have a natural angry or passionate

temperament, would there not be a way to just embrace and fully admit your own anger into your decision making

process; as a source of extra information, and multifaceted enlightenment; to use your own anger as a positive? As

long as you don't lose control, can't you just trust your anger as being for a good reason on its own terms, and

mine all that information? Can't you allow your anger to illuminate certain areas of your brain you otherwise

wouldn't, as long as you keep control; or better yet, channel it in a healthy direction?

For myself, I believe

my anger has helped my understanding as much as my compassion, which is immensely. But it only works when I make it

conscious, which I often fail at. Psychologically, I don't believe there is any way to make thinking superior by

subtracting passions from it. To me it deadens it. Passions are potential, undeveloped thoughts, for one thing.

Passions are and should be fuel for higher thought, though not always, and I think the neurological research bears

this out.

There is also the serious danger of mistakenly thinking one is being logical and objective; as a

result of supressing, repressing, and/or denying unconsciously one's passions or emotions. A result of this

would be to have anger (or another emotion) run amok in ones life, communications, and decisions, to some extent;

and not be aware of it.

[belgareth]

Doc,

We're back at a basic

incompatability between how you view the world and how I do. There's nothing wrong with the way you see

the world or with the way I see it. The disconnect here is I can't really make it understandable to you. That's

fine because I really don't understand your view either. We've travelled different paths and learned different

lessons.

I have anger and it acts as my advisor, just as my fear and love do, those are all part of the way I

believe. The single greatest driving force under my beliefs is my love for this world we are borrowing and the

creatures that inhabit it. The tenent you seem to not understand and I have a hard time explaining is that those

passions are not what rule me and under my beliefs they shouldn't be. Not despoiling this planet is a rational

course as others will use it after I'm gone, as an example of how I believe.

Hating somebody for who or what

they are is also unreasonable under my beliefs . It would be easy to claim I know why somebody does something but

unless I am in their head I can only make guesses. But, their reasons are irrelevent, only the particular actions

that I believe are wrong are what I fight against. Once I win a fight against a particular action there is no more

reason to fight so I'll extend my hand to help a vanquished opponent. If I lose the fight, the same idea applies. I

don't seek revenge and don't remain in a combat mode. I move on with my life. I look at each action in its own

light and do not judge the person. Whatever powers that are will do that in time.

To say I would be more healthy

mentally just means you still don't see how I see the world and that's fine, I don't ask you too. All I do is ask

that you don't judge me by your standards. I accept the fact that you have your beliefs and try to help others see

things from your viewpoint. I try to do the same from my own.

I know you are a psychologist, so is my ex-mother

in law. She got her Ph.D from San Jose State. I'll share the particulars with you in private, if you'd like. In

sixteen years that she was in frequent contact, even lived with us for a couple years, she never grew to understand

me either. She did, after a fashion, come to accept my way of seeing things as reasonable and me as stable and

healthy. She even conceeded that my child rearing worked very well! From a mother in law? A high compliment, indeed

It was based on my beliefs.

It wasn't my intention to go into a long desertation but I wanted to try

again. Our worlds are different, our methods work for each of us. I don't believe letting anger make your decisions

or guide your path is healthy or wise. You offer your approach and I offer mine.

As a last comment, I don't

think I'd go hunting with Cheney. Damned fool act! I would expect any idiot to know better than mixing guns and

alcohol. Can't you just see the Secret Service agents cowering behind the trees while following him around?

Maybe making bets on who get shot first?

[belgareth]

Just had to share

this:
http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1609.html

[Netghost56]

I think that if you're a

politician, you have a duty to uphold. And that should include refraining from dangerous or reckless activities

until your term is finished.

But thats just me.

[belgareth]

In his free time, he is just

like anybody else in his right to do as he will, so long as he doesn't harm others or break the laws he is sworn to

uphold. Since he failed to meet both those standards he should suffer the same consequences as anybody else would.

[DrSmellThis]

Belgareth, as far as I can

tell, you just basically agreed with everything I just said, in substance if not in exact expression; as

distasteful as that might seem. Neither of us believe in being ruled by passion. So I'm not seeing the use to

discuss it further.

Bush and Co. need to be impeached and tried for various crimes against humanity (e.g.,

lying two nations into war). If that happens the battle will be over, and I'll hold no further grudge, just like

you say. For now, you better believe I have a grudge, since he is still a mass-murdering president (along with his

crime family) and continues to damage the world and his country in so many ways, completely without remorse. He is a

runaway train, to put it mildly. So it is impossible under my view to say something like, "even though I'd make

some decisions differently than George W., he made this tax cut I liked!" He's gone too far for that, in my

opinion. There are so many legit reasons to impeach him it's hard to count. I don't want him to stick around long

enough to accidentally make a decision I might agree with. Further, his "philosophy" of governance and democracy, as

reflected in his actions and words, is thoroughly rotten. Let someone else have a chance.

I agree

about Cheney. We both favor the right to hunt, bear arms, etc. But that doesn't give someone the right to act like

an idiot with a gun, ignore hunting safety, and endanger people. He was kicked out of Yale for excess drinking, has

two DUI arrests, and still likes to drink. That doesn't mean you always have to be drinking. What possessed

him to drink "just one beer" at the picnic, and hunt that same afternoon? How many medications is he on? I wonder

why he "declined" to talk to police that day? Hmmmmm...

The bird takes off and you feel you have to wheel around

90 degrees in a different direction to shoot at it. So you keep your eye in your scope and spin around to

shoot. But before you shoot a gun it is your responsibility to make sure nothing is in the line of fire. And it is

your responsibility to know where your hunting companions are. Hasn't this guy taken a hunting class? Or can the

old man just not hold his beer anymore? And isn't it your responsibility to get the damn stamp on your permit to

make it legal? Why does he get off with a warning on that one, after already shooting somebody using his illegal

permit? What would happen if you or I did that? Anyway, he's damn lucky he's not in an orange jump suit being

tried for manslaughter.

[belgareth]

I'm glad we agree on Cheney,

at least.

I can't say I know what's in King George's head or his thoughts so I can only take your

statements about his remorse as your opinion. Tax cuts are irrelevent because the reality is that the cost of

running government has continued to climb as it has year after year after year so that is a poor example. However,

and I hate to bring one thread into another but it IS one of the best examples of my point, I do agree with not

signing the Kyoto protocols. I also agree with joining the asian countries in their agreement and believe it could

have far greater impact on pollution for a wide variety of reasons. So, without going into the debate about it, I

agree with some major things and disagree with others, such as our participation in what I believe is an

unreasonable war. Once again, I do not know his reasons for us being in the war so do not judge that, only the

actions that brought us to war.

Impeachment is little more than a trial held in congress instead of the courts.

If there is sufficient evidence to hold the trial I'd like to see it go ahead, the same as any other criminal

trial. However, I do not convict Bush or anybody else prior to the trial. If a fair hearing of the facts

demonstrates that he is, as you say, a mass murdering criminal, then I will support his execution after reasonable

opportunity to appeal.

It seems more and more republicans are pulling away from Bush so maybe it will come to a

trial. Failing at that, it seems likely that the democrats will hold power next term, it's possible that tey will

bring it to trial then. If it does I'll watch with interest. If it doesn't I have to accept that as well.

[DrSmellThis]

Regarding lack of remorse,

Bush has said in many and various ways, point blank, that he'd do everything the same way (e.g., Iraq), will

continue to do it (e.g., illegal warrantless spying) and feels good about it; that he can't name any mistakes he's

made (multiple times on this one). He says he has no remorse for anything.

So I am not claiming to "know what is

in King George's head or his thoughts" either. He has also said enough about his reasons for taking us to war,

along with many lies about it. Though his administration's actions also make it seem obvious some of the reasons

why he went, I'd never put him on trial for anything except his actual deeds and words.

I'm not a lawyer, but

I'm pretty sure impeachment is different from a criminal trial in that the only punishment is removal from

office. A sitting president must be impeached before standing trial like a regular citizen on anything. But that's

just a technical point. No matter.

One difference between you and I is that I wouldn't execute Bush for murder

and treason -- just put him away. I'd protect his right to life even though he doesn't give that same protection

to others. I also would never advocate that he be tortured in prison.

[belgareth]

That tells me that he believes

what he is doing is right. Why would he have remorse for that?

Your right about impeachment but it is a

necessary first step if a person is to be brought up on charges for a crime. I over-simplified the process.

The

law of the land stipulates execution as a potential consequence for both treason and murder. If a jury decides that

should be the penalty then that's the law. As a member of this nation you are obligated to accept the jury's

decision on it. If you don't like the law, convince enough people to vote to change it. I don't support torture

either and consider locking a person in prison for the rest of their life torture.

[DrSmellThis]

That tells me

that he believes what he is doing is right. Why would he have remorse for that?

Your right about impeachment but

it is a necessary first step if a person is to be brought up on charges for a crime. I over-simplified the

process.

The law of the land stipulates execution as a potential consequence for both treason and murder. If a

jury decides that should be the penalty then that's the law. As a member of this nation you are obligated to accept

the jury's decision on it. If you don't like the law, convince enough people to vote to change it. I don't

support torture either and consider locking a person in prison for the rest of their life torture.

I don't

get that reasoning about my "obligation". I do like your idea of fighting to get the law changed, however.

Elimenating capital punishment (for that matter, the whole, wrong-headed "punishment" mentality, starting with

childhood) is one of my causes. I believe it's just one of those things where people just don't get it yet, but

will eventually. That is certainly where the poll numbers are trending over the long term. Once they figure it out

they will wonder how they ever believed the other way. However, in no way do I suppose you personally would have

your mind changed on this. I do think I almost have my conservative Republican father convinced.

You're

essentially making a decision about other people's lives that they would rather get executed than spend life in

prison. That's easy to say, but not factually true. People almost invariably fight to live, and quite often

murderers appreciate that they need to be protected from themselves through some kind of permanent incarceration.

The point, and most natural consequence, is to make them and everyone else safe. I respect that you feel differently

about your own life than most people. If somebody wants to take their own life, in or out of prison, that's

a different kettle of fish.

The prevailing evidence (including my own clinical experience) suggests murderers

have a frontal lobe brain disorder. I've posted quite a few links to some of that evidence on the forum recently.

I'm not going to advocate killing someone for having a brain disease, just because their symptoms are more severe

and destructive than for other brain diseases. That's not how I view human beings or the world. Incidentally, and

this might sound unbelievable to those outside the mental health field; but murderers can on average be very

pleasant people to be around, compared to other criminals or severely mentally ill people. To me, they just act

brain-damaged. One of my day treatment clients killed my sweet coworker in cold blood, as she was playing a board

game. Shot her in the head once, and then "finished her off". He had threatened to kill me a few days before, to

other coworkers while I wasn't at work. As horrible as that was, I knew he was severely brain damaged and wished

him no harm. He'll never walk the streets again. Some day it will be possible to treat folks like that

successfully, before they murder someone. It's possible now if you catch them while they're still kids. Early

diagnosis and brain rehab is the key.

That's very concrete, of course; but there are lots of other, even more

fundamental reasons to move past capital punishment in order to help empower society to reach its larger goals with

integrity. I won't go into them here, to give forum members a break on political debating. For the sake of others,

IMHO, you and I should probably try to improve our debating skills or methods before attempting it again.

I also

think I'll avoid talking in circle games about Bush's lack of remorse. I made my point.

Thank you for granting

me the factual point about impeachment.

[belgareth]

We're back to another

disconnect between your beliefs and mine. From my perspective a human animal is no better or greater or more

deserving of preservatin than any other creature. I would not cage any animal for the rest of its life and all

animals will fight for life. If an animal is too dangerous or sick to allow it freedom, we 'put it to sleep'. Some

would argue that animals not having self awareness don't count but I don't accept that argument. Where do you draw

the line? Is a slug self aware? How about a gorrilla? Where does it happen?

This even takes us to the topic of

euthanasia. A sick, crippled dog is given relief by being put to sleep (Put out of its misery) but a human isn't. A

human must suffer through the very last dregs of unbearable agony because of how we view human life. That's flatly

cruel too.

The question about Bush is a valid one. Each of us has our own definition of right and wrong, good

and bad. You and I strongly disagree on a large number of things. From your perspective I am wrong, from mine you

are. Some of the things I beleive are right you'd likely call criminal, some that you believe are right I would

feel that way about. Perhaps there is something wrong with his brain, I don't know that either. All I can judge is

whether or not I agree with each specific action and take each action on its own merits.

The funny part is I'm

not talking about punishment either. There are consequences for our actions and if a person takes an action in full

knowledge of the consequences then it is hard for me to have a lot of sympathy. I know if I hit my hand with a

hammer it's going to hurt. If I go ahead and hit it anyhow, its my own fault and I shouldn't complain about it. I

may not like the high taxes the government extorts from us but I know what will happen if I decide to stop paying

those taxes. It is my decision to make but since the government has lots of men with guns I figure its smarter not

to argue with them.

You bring up what I guess is best described as a defective brain as a reason for certain

actions. If that is truly the cause, what is the solution? Is it an inherited trait?

[DrSmellThis]

Let's see if I have this

right. I probably don't:

* So you're happy to leave Bush in as president and take the horrific, destructive

decisions along with those you agree with?

* So any animal or human too sick to enjoy complete freedom of

movement should be put to death, regardles of what it wants?

[belgareth]

Let's see

if I have this right. I probably don't:

* So you're happy to leave Bush in as president and take the horrific,

destructive decisions along with those you agree with?

I'm not as convinced of all Bush's evils as you

are. Let's avoid going into a long debate about his each and every action and simply agree that we disagree about

the magnitude of his crimes, ok?

* So any animal or human too sick to enjoy complete freedom

of movement should be put to death, regardles of what it wants?

That isn't what I said at all and I think

you know that. Where is the line drawn? I don't have the answer as there is not a single answer to the question.

Would I allow an animal to suffer needlessly? No, I would not. Do I consider caging an animal for the rest of its

life cruelty, yes I do. No matter the animal, it is utterly inhumane. The more mentally complex the animal the more

inhumane it is.

[DrSmellThis]

Sorry, I missed an edit on

your last post, and didn't reply in my last one. You may have missed an edit on mine, too. I talked about early

diagnosis and intervention being the key for those with that kind of empathy/judgement/attachment/explosive

disorder. I have helped kids with some of these issues in a milder form (one reason I remain anonymous on the forum,

to double protect confidentiality). This is work I already feel comfortable doing. I'd be happy to expand on

exactly how you treat the problem. But what we really need are more effective medications, other treatments (say,

some kind of targeted version of ECT) or even better frontal lobe surgeries; for those who have progressed past a

certain point.

[belgareth]

Yeah, we're both good at going

back and adding miscallaneous edits before a person can respond. It keeps things entertaining.

Agreed that we

need better meds, since I know nothing about the rest I can't comment. Is there any person that you can say for

certain that the medical issue is the cause of behavoir? Or conversely, is there a situation where it is certain

that medical issues are not the cause? And lastly, is it heriditary? I can just see some bright government clown

coming up with the idea of restricting reproduction.

Ok, one more: If medical conditions are the cause of

negative behavoir, would it be a safe assumption that most of our leaders have been in some way defective? That's a

sad thought, isn't it?

[DrSmellThis]

That's not what you said and

I know it?

I would not cage any animal for the rest of its life and all animals will fight for

life. If an animal is too dangerous or sick to allow it freedom, we 'put it to sleep'. Some would argue that

animals not having self awareness don't count but I don't accept that argument... This even takes us to the topic

of euthanasia. A sick, crippled dog is given relief by being put to sleep (Put out of its misery) but a human

isn't. A human must suffer through the very last dregs of unbearable agony because of how we view human life.

That's flatly cruel too.

Now read what you just wrote about capital punishment, in the context of the post

before it; and read the question I asked of it. Can you see that what I asked ("So any animal or human too sick to

enjoy complete freedom of movement should be put to death, regardless of what it wants?") refers to a possible

logical implication of what you wrote, and was reasonable? Remember, I admitted I could have it wrong, and accept

that I did. But you also wrote what you wrote, and I do wish you could acknowledge the ambiguities and implications

of what you write. You'd find I'm very understanding, and don't expect everyone to be clear, as long as they

own up to what they said.

[Texan2006]

Hi


I am

new on this sight. This may sound like a stupid question, but how do I do a new post? Ie. Not a reply but an

original?

Thanks

Terry

[belgareth]

The statement is clear. You

said "Complete freedom of movement should be put to death?"

I said: "Too dangerous or too sick to be allowed

freedom." While there is overlap I think the difference is clear. An animal with a broken leg has limited freedom of

movement but probably will recover. I had a cat for a number of years who was missing a leg. Not a big problem, he

was still enjoying life until a couple dogs came over my fence and killed him. A person without a leg is fine in

most respects. However, a dog with rabies would be put to sleep before the desease killed it. A dog known to attack

and kill other animals without provacation would be as well.

[DrSmellThis]

Is there any

person that you can say for certain that the medical issue is the cause of behavoir? Or conversely, is there a

situation where it is certain that medical issues are not the cause? And lastly, is it heriditary? I can just see

some bright government clown coming up with the idea of restricting reproduction.

Ok, one more: If medical

conditions are the cause of negative behavoir, would it be a safe assumption that most of our leaders have been in

some way defective? That's a sad thought, isn't it?

There are lots of people for which you could say that

they would not have behaved violently were it not for their medical issue. I think you can be born with a tendency,

whether genetically or through fetal substance exposure, or develop one through head injury. That tendency typically

requires certain environmental conditions to develop into violent sociopathy, stresses and traumas; but not always.

The thing is that the raw ingredients of violent sociopathy can be recognized in nascent form if you know all the

subtle/not so subtle things to look for. It's not like somebody can have no ability to empathize/attach with

others/exercise judgement about their behavior/have explosive behavior without anyone being able to detect any

behavioral/emotional irregularities. Their emotions function in a very different manner. It's when you can start

to put together many small signs and see a bigger picture of a syndrome that you get worried.

Like most things

in life, it's a matter of degrees. For example, Muslim terrorists have a cultural cause contributing to their

violence, but not all Muslims raised in extreme cultures become violent. Those that do -- were you to submit them

to exhaustive brain scans you could definitely find differences in the frontal lobes and centers of

emotion/judgement, compared to those who don't become violent. I can't completely prove all this yet, but "I'm

pretty damn sure, I kid you not."

[belgareth]

In any forum, click the 'New

Thread' button near the top left.

Hi


I am new on this sight. This may sound like a stupid

question, but how do I do a new post? Ie. Not a reply but an original?

Thanks

Terry

[DrSmellThis]

I don't worry about someone

being able to convince society to restrict reproduction to prevent murderers from being born, because heredity is a

matter of odds, not certainty; environmental factors affect a condition's blossoming; and rehab is possible if you

catch it early.

When you have someone with severe negative behavior that doesn't go along with maturity, I

think you could typically point out some factor that was physical, if you knew enough. That seems to be the flavor

of psychological research. That doesn't absolve the person from their share of responsibility, but it does spread

responsibility around a bit. We succeed or fail together as a society/world. I also think this knowledge changes the

nature of compassion.

If we better understood the brain abnormalities that plague leaders, we could learn to

better recognize when our leaders were suffering from symptoms. Public awareness would lead to better voting, and

better handling of counterproductive leadership. Leaders are at risk for certain things, just like all of us are.