quote:In a rambling manifesto on Lee's website, believed to have been written by Lee, the writer rails against "disgusting human babies," "parasitic infants," and says people should "disassemble civilization." The manifesto also calls on Discovery to "broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet."
He's one of those human extinctionist, militant childfree, malthusian dudes. Also obviously completely insane and has been for years.
here's a cache of his demands
quote:The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it's affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other's inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!
2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.
3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!
4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn't, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??
5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)
6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!
8. Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You're the media, you can reach enough people. It's your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!
9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.
10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!
11. You're also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.
Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human's lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!
It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It's like a couple are having 30 babies even though it's just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!
Also, war must be halted. Not because it's morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!
The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.
Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.
The humans? The planet does not need humans.
You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!
I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.
These are the demands and sayings of Lee.
of course, the squirrels.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Ha, um. Yeah. He doesn't like babies:
"filthy human children" "anchor baby filth" "disgusting human babies"
And I don't know why he chose the Discovery Channel, it's popular, but it certainly is not a major influencing force on the human species.
But analyzing this guys reasoning is pointless, anyways.
I hope everyone escapes uninjured.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
He says there's no need for humans? Great! Let's start with getting rid of him.
But wow, snark aside, this is an actually serious situation and completely insane.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Looking again, it looks like the hostages have been freed.
This is strangely similar to the plot of The King of Comedy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I am going to start signing all my communication "These are the demands and sayings of Liza." Wouldn't it be better with more capitalization, though? "These are the Demands and Sayings of Liza." "These are the DEMANDS and SAYINGS of Liza." "THESE Are The DEMANDS And SAYINGS Of Liza." Now we're talkin'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He wants to get rid of human civilization? And he also wants to use modern technology to spread that message? Hmm....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lee Adama, is that you?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Also...Stop all war but reduce the human population?
Wouldn't war be the quickest way to accomplish that goal?
At first I was like "This guy is a liberal gone crazy." This was then followed by the thought "Nevermind, he is against Anchor Babies, must be a neo-con gone crazy." This was followed by yet another thought, "Maybe he is just crazy."
I think I've settled on that one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes. Rosalyn?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I am going to start signing all my communication "These are the demands and sayings of Liza." Wouldn't it be better with more capitalization, though? "These are the Demands and Sayings of Liza." "These are the DEMANDS and SAYINGS of Liza." "THESE Are The DEMANDS And SAYINGS Of Liza." Now we're talkin'.
Oh, yeah!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I am going to start signing all my communication "These are the demands and sayings of Liza." Wouldn't it be better with more capitalization, though? "These are the Demands and Sayings of Liza." "These are the DEMANDS and SAYINGS of Liza." "THESE Are The DEMANDS And SAYINGS Of Liza." Now we're talkin'.
I would definitely capitalize "LIZA".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lee was fatally shot in the rescue. Everyone else: unharmed
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, that's one down for his goal of human extinction.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Lee and Rosalyn, stuff it. I'm busy with MY problems.
-Gaius.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Well, that's one down for his goal of human extinction.
Sadly enough his contribution to his own goal lasted less than a second.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's Roslin Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I obviously missed the ongoing discussion and created a different post on the same subject. Apologies. Here's what I posted there, without reading what was here:
It wont be long and a nut job on the right will kill in the name of a conservative pillar and there will be congressional hearings against the Tea Party, Talk Radio, NRA, etc.
Conservatives dodged the bullet this time. This time it was a left-wing nut job, killing in the name of one of their pillars. It'll drop off the radar within a week....not newsworthy.....certainly not demanding congressional attention.
Right wing nutjobs would bring automatic gun control legislation. Any wagers on this one? Brought to you by the people who created "hate crime punishments"......depends on who did it.
Of course, this guy is crazy and the left isn't to blame for his actions.....will the left accord the same understanding to anyone else, other than a Muslim gunning down deploying troops?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Oklahoma City bomber was a government hating, gun rights believin' nut job, and I'm pretty sure nobody talks about him these days.
But thanks for playing six degrees of paranoia.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It matters who does it. Those Earth Hating, racist conservatives.
[ September 01, 2010, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Timothy McVeigh killed how many people? How many children? How many of us will always remember the picture of the firefighter with the kid from the daycare he blew up? This guy killed- wait, he didn't kill anyone. Only casualty was him and he didn't kill himself- cops got him. So, yeah, this one I expect to get forgotten pretty quick- though the comedic element does give it a bit more staying power.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Timothy McVeigh killed 168. The 911 terrorists killed 2,792.
This administration considered the Ft Hood shooter a "nut job" for killing 13 people and wounding 30 others....he was yelling "allahu akbar" while pulling the trigger.
If a right wing nut kills 10......the congressional hearings will commence. There's no pattern other than a party that created "hate crimes" and a president that has empathy for our enemies.
Not one "hate crime" prosecution for "beat up a white kid day"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If you're left speechless, I'll give you some more research:
"Workers of the world unite".....the "fundamental transformation of America" has begun with Obama.
He awoke a sleeping giant. The everyday, working American, taxpayer, giant. Thanks for playing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're absolutely right, malanthrop. McVeigh received disproportionate attention v. 9-11.
No, wait, that's an idiotic statement that fails the laugh test of anyone who has watched headline news in the past ten years, and is a transparent bit of partisan hackery on your part.
By the way, still waiting to hear about purely capitalist America. At this point your refusal to address this point, a point on which you were so smug and sure so frequently, marks you a coward and a liar.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If you want to revisit the capitalist argument, I'll go back to that post. As I said there, and admitted my mistake for using an absolute term against a high school debater. By using the term "purely"...I gave you the opening you are continuing to pursue.
There is no "pure capitalism"....even in free markets, selling your child for sex could be illegal. America was in it's most "pure" capitalistic form the day of the signing of the constitution. The purest form of capitalism the world has ever seen.
I wonder, why did we have a revolution, when local congressional districts have multi-generational nepotistic representatives. They bring home the bacon and sell their votes to the highest bidder.
Our founders started with a clean slate. Our first president had the common honor not to run again...he didn't want power.....he was a true servant of the people "by the people". Our founders failed to give us term limits....good luck getting that bill passed by a Madigan, Kennedy or Bush.
America started as a nation of the "purest" form of capitalism known to man. That's what made this young nation excel and exceed the rest of the world. Every political generation has sold/eroded that to the point that we have businesses that are "too big to fail" and pension funds that get "bailed out". Oh yes, we are far from pure capitalism. Read Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
It wont be long and a nut job on the right will kill in the name of a conservative pillar and there will be congressional hearings against the Tea Party, Talk Radio, NRA, etc.
I don't recall that happening two years ago. I don't think there was even any federal gun control legislation introduced as a result.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
What happened two years ago? Are you referring to the plane crash guy? His manifesto was so crazy, it criss-crossed left to right.
Of course, he hated taxes. I doubt that's purely right wing.
College shooters are different....enlighten me.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
No, not the man who crashed into the IRS building. I agree that he was not clearly right or left wing. I'm talking about the guy who specifically said he wanted to kill liberals.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you want to revisit the capitalist argument, I'll go back to that post. As I said there, and admitted my mistake for using an absolute term against a high school debater. By using the term "purely"...I gave you the opening you are continuing to pursue.
See? You still can't man up. You weren't flat-out wrong, you just used a bit of mistaken piece of rhetoric. When you said that, your meaning was very clear. You didn't mean 'purest it had ever gotten', you said and meant pure, and then when you got called on it, shut up for about a week on the subject, pretending it had never happened.
You're a hack, and transparently full of manure, and so far as I can see, even folks around here on your side of politics don't want anything to do with you. You even lack the strength of your own convictions, which is unsurprising.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: No, not the man who crashed into the IRS building. I agree that he was not clearly right or left wing. I'm talking about the guy who specifically said he wanted to kill liberals.
Obviously, I don't recall.....did he actually kill anyone? Enlighten me.
I can share a few with you,....if you'd like.
My point is that it doesn't matter. Murder is murder, crazies are crazies. I prefer a legal system concerned with the victim, not the intention, race or nationality of the offender.
Law is law. Murdering a black or white shouldn't be any different. Voter intimidation should be prosecuted the same, despite the race of the intimidator. How do we have federal immigration laws that tolerate sanctuary cities and a federal government that sues states that want to enforce federal law? Would the federal government tolerate pedophile cities? Politics.....we aren't a nation of laws, we're a nation of politics.
Some laws are ignored and others enforced more stringently based upon the offender's race, intention and nationality. Law should be about the "offense" and care about the victim.
Try being an American who get's caught using someone else's social security number - illegal alien....ok.
[ September 02, 2010, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Law is law. Murdering a black or white shouldn't be any different. Voter intimidation should be prosecuted the same, despite the race of the intimidator. How do we have federal immigration laws that tolerate sanctuary cities and a federal government that sues states that want to enforce federal law? Would the federal government tolerate pedophile cities? Politics.....we aren't a nation of laws, we're a nation of politics.
Some laws are ignored and others enforced more stringently based upon the offender's race, intention and nationality. Law should be about the "offense" and care about the victim.
Try being an American who get's caught using someone else's social security number - illegal alien....ok.
I only vaguely remembered that there had been a fatal shooting at a church by someone who said he hated liberals. I definitely didn't remember the guy's name just two years later. If this incident didn't stick out in everyone's mind just two years later, perhaps the media is not obsessing over right-wing violence as much as you think? Keep in mind that this is not just a shooting by someone who happens to be a conservative. His manifesto says
“Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate, and House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the Mainstream Media.”
“Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them...the only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets, kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done...go kill liberals!”
I don't recall extreme outrage or gun control legislation. I don't think there were congressional hearings against Goldberg, or the conservative authors whose books were found in the shooter's home. Judging from the Google news timeline of articles, this actually did pretty much drop off the radar within two weeks. I guess it wasn't newsworthy enough, and didn't demand Congress's attention.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Don't confuse us with actual FACT! Damn liberal, mucking up everything.....
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Its hard to imagine 'An Inconvenient Truth' inspiring this....
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What happened two years ago? Are you referring to the plane crash guy? His manifesto was so crazy, it criss-crossed left to right.
Of course, he hated taxes. I doubt that's purely right wing.
College shooters are different....enlighten me.
And you think this current nutcase's manifesto is less crazy? The guy who crashed his plane into the IRS didn't just hate taxes, he hated big government. If the "liberal" media and congress were as biased as you are claiming, there was more than enough in his manifesto to warrant congressional hearings and a crack down on Tea Party activists. But just the opposite happened. Within hours after the crash it was announced that it was "not a Terrorist attack" and that the man was a isolated individual not connected with any group or movement. They made those announcements before there was even time to make a thorough investigation.
And BTW, hating taxes is purely right wing. No one likes to pay taxes, but the left wing sees them as a necessary part of living in a healthy community. There is a left wing tax evasion movement but it is not based on hating taxes, its motivated by a desire to avoid paying for immoral wars. The primary means recommended by these groups for avoiding taxes is to live in voluntary poverty.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Without knowing anything else about this guy, I'm going to state that the most likely psychiatric illness is bipolar type I: acute manic episode. There are some other things on the list, but that seems most likely from skimming over his demands.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.
If I ever decide to make myself a martyr for a cause, my manifesto will not be this ridiculous.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whereas I can only hope mine would be. For the sake of the froggies -- and, of course, the squirrels.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.
If I ever decide to make myself a martyr for a cause, my manifesto will not be this ridiculous.
--j_k
That is quitter talk. Tell me where you live and I'll coach you with a regimen of LSD, Carl Sagan recordings and original Smurf episodes.
I know you can out crazy this guy.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm having trouble deciding which is funnier: the use of "froggies" or the "of course" in reference to the squirrels.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am having trouble finding anything funny about the fact that this man who should have been treated for mental illness instead put other people in danger and ended up dead. "Froggies" or not, this was just scary and sad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm glad I'm not the only one finding this hilarity around what I see as a very sad situation as very tasteless.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think Kmbboots brings up a good point. I think often times people with mental issues and illnesses are overlooked. Often they are not diagnosed properly and it isn't until they do something horrible that they receive the attention they should have received in the first place.
I had a co-worker at CompUSA that quit because he said things were getting too stressful for him. I've been there, so I understood. It turns out it was more than just that. A couple of years ago he walked into a hospital and told them that they had to hold him there. He said he was mentally ill and didn't know what was wrong with him, and he was afraid he was going to hurt someone.
The hospital did a physical and sent him home, telling him everything was fine. Two days later he murdered his girlfriend then committed suicide.
If someone at the hospital had listened to him or noticed that something was mentally wrong with him, this may not have happened. I know this guy at the Discovery Channel building was crazy, but reading about what he has done in the past indicates to me that he had been acting strangely for quote a while. Had someone paid attention to this and given him the attention he needed, the whole situation may have been avoided.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Our founders started with a clean slate. Our first president had the common honor not to run again...he didn't want power.....he was a true servant of the people "by the people". Our founders failed to give us term limits....good luck getting that bill passed by a Madigan, Kennedy or Bush.
So aside from ignoring fugu's post in the other thread showing areas in which the US was MUCH less capitalistic (hint: tariffs) going back to the founder's times, I have to just say, if you really believe in the "clean slate", how you finesse the 3/5ths clause, the 3rd amendment, the 9th and 10th amendment, or creating a bicameral legislative body?
Or the Articles of Confederation.
At best you could say parts of 18th century America were more capitalistic, but certainly not in any general sense. And there was a heck of a lot of baggage the founders had to deal with when negotiating the Constitution.
-Bok
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am having trouble finding anything funny about the fact that this man who should have been treated for mental illness instead put other people in danger and ended up dead. "Froggies" or not, this was just scary and sad.
How certain are we that he had a mental illness? Sure he was troubled, and had a strange past with the law and with other people (see the link below), but was he mentally ill? Or just extreme?
quote:For at least two years Lee called for protests against the company and was arrested and found guilty of disorderly conduct for a protest outside of Discovery's Maryland headquarters in 2008. Due to these past actions, security at the Discovery Channel offices knew who Lee was and "immediately identified" him during this incident, Manger said.
He was capable, able to protest, and generally coherent. But he certainly had bizarre ideas and demands. The Discovery Channel was never sure if he was serious or not because of the strangeness of his demands. He just went too far down a path. Is that a mental illness?
As for the humor, on the full scale of violence and terror in the news, this one is exceptionally absurd. Thankfully, he didn't hurt anyone else. Then it would be far less humorous. But because he didn't hurt anyone, and he did leave a bizarre message behind, the absurdity bubbles to the top. It'd be difficult to create a more bizarre list of demands.
Yes, it's unfortunate that he died and didn't get help that he might have needed. But it still qualifies as a bizarre and exceptionally absurd event.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It'd be difficult to create a more bizarre list of demands.
That's kind of the point for me. This guy was, to me, obviously in a lot of pain and extremely mentally unbalanced. My personal, shoot from the hip, read here is that he was out to commit suicide.
When I read or hear people making fun of him for being in a lot of pain and mentally unbalanced, it feels very similar to people laughing at a physically handicapped person falling down or say a developmentally disabled person for saying something that we consider stupid.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
So wait... He's advocating the extinction of the human race ("...encouraging human sterilization and infertility...", "...ways to disassemble civilization...", "...human population goes down...", "...The planet does not need humans..." etc...), and people are wondering about his mental state?
Am I missing something here?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Those are positions that are held by some radical environmentalists. They are fringe ideas, sure, but not necessarily signs of insanity.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
He was also arrested for helping bring in illegal immigrants, and his weapons were starter pistols that fired blanks
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Those are positions that are held by some radical environmentalists. They are fringe ideas, sure, but not necessarily signs of insanity.
That's why I was questioning whether he was insane, or just an extremist. Was he someone who wanted to die and used the extreme radical ideas as a means to that end?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Oh boy... Uncyclopedia already has an article up on this guy:
quote: Mourners wishing to give their final respects from all across the globe will be attending his funeral: The Lions, Tigers, Bears, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears (again), and, of course, the Squirrels.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: This guy was, to me, obviously in a lot of pain and extremely mentally unbalanced.
I don't disagree with this, but I'm curious where do you draw the line? Are all fringe ideas signs of mental distress? Is all violent behavior a sign of disease?
I think what happened was sad. But at the same time, it was extremely absurd. When I heard about his demands, I laughed and I don't feel bad about that. Regardless of his mental state, his demand list comes off as extremely ridiculous and that's amusing. I don't think that conflicts with finding the situation to be a tragedy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Amanecer , No, I don't consider all fringe ideas or violence signs of mental illness. In this specific instance, it seems obvious to me that there was mental illness.
I also can get laughing at the absurdity of his demands. I'm taking exception to the mockery of this person.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Notice, this statement and reference is from a .gov website? I suppose 25% should be supported by the rest. The hyper kid in class now has a disability.
My wife has suffered with stomache problems for years. She had a colonoscopy this week. They told her she had IBS. She's happy,....she knows what is wrong. What I wont tell her is, doctors use the term "syndrome" when they don't have an answer.
The "hyper" kid now has ADHD and is "disabled", deserving SSI. According to our own government, 25% of Americans have mental disorders......
I prefer the times of limited government, when Einstein was considered slow by his teacher, for not fitting in. Today, Einstein would be drugged and given SSI. Today, our government would've considered Einstein to be one of the 25% with a mental disorder and his parents would've been given the excuse to have low expectations of their "retarded" child.
[ September 03, 2010, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: She's happy,....she knows what is wrong. What I wont tell her is, doctors use the term "syndrome" when they don't have an answer.
*grin
Yeah, like that classic Down Syndrome, or Turner Syndrome, or Noonan Syndrome. Chromosomes are so complicated!
No, really, I know what you mean. A "syndrome" is basically a cluster of signs and symptoms, and in the beginning, that's pretty much all we have for most medical diagnoses. But understanding does evolve sometimes, even often. We may well be getting there for IBS. We certainly have for Down Syndrome
The gut as the "second brain," neurotransmitters and the like may well hold some answers for IBS, at least enough for progress now. The science is promising. But that may well be so tangential to be of little interest at this point in the conversation.
Just wanted to nod in the general direction.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
kmboots, good post, and point well taken.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Quote: "...An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year" ... I suppose 25% should be supported by the rest. The hyper kid in class now has a disability. ... According to our own government, 25% of Americans have mental disorders. ... ...and his parents would've been given the excuse to have low expectations of their "retarded" child.
Well, sort of. The thing about the initial quotation is that (if accurately cited) those are numbers of [prevalence] for a given year. That doesn't necessarily mean there was a problem for a full year, or even necessarily for a few full months. It certainly doesn't necessitate that a given person will have a problem next year.
Most people included in that number are able to function through the process, albeit not optimally. Many of them can function much more optimally with minimal assistance or accomodation. Many recover fully. That's a good thing.
I'm just saying that the numbers don't speak for themselves, and when we interpret them, we may read more into the story than is really there.
[ September 04, 2010, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When did the term AIDS originate...another "syndrome" without an answer.
If I remember correctly....doctors said it was a "gay disease"....at least until they learned you couldn't catch it for shaking hands with a girly sounding man.
Identifying common symptoms doesn't provide an answer. Of course, this is the root of all modern science,....observation.
Observing poor immune systems produces the label "AIDS", observing people with stomache problems leads to "IBS". Hyper children have ADHD. Once it's given the label "disease".....it's understood. Of course, alcoholism is now considered a "disease"....is that label political or medical?
All science is based upon observation...syndromes are the weakest of scientific definitions. Syndromes can't be replicated any more than the creation of life....ie proof of God. Yet my God-fearing wife finds solace in the IBS label....she knows the doctors know what her symptoms are. No truth or explanation there....the label will suffice.
Hyper kids have ADHD and the anal retentive have IBS.....how insensitive of me for pointing out what we use to call them through out the history of man.
Einstein is a retard....sorry,...ADHD.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
So, what's your take on the status of understanding regarding Down Syndrome?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: So, what's your take on the status of understanding regarding Down Syndrome?
Down Syndrome will have it's name changed the day scientists understand the impact of chromosomes.
We know they have different chromosomal levels, but we don't yet understand why that missing chromosome makes them all look and act the same. (Am I being stereotypical?)
The scientist that figures it out will have a "disease" named after him.
At least they aren't "mongeloids" anymore. The syndrome name is much more compassionate.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Ah, okay. I think your understanding may be somewhat idiosyncratic, but be that as it may.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Really?
What's the difference between a Mongeloid and and a Down Syndrome child?
What's the difference between a Negro and and an African American?
What's the difference between a midget and a little person?
What's the difference between a retard and....
What's the difference between a hyper kid and the ADHD one?
PC terms only lower expectations for the human condition.
There will always be disruptive and hyper kids... they now have a label and excuse for their behavior.
Will they perform better under this form of compassion?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
mal, YOU lower expectations. You have a limited amount of knowledge on many subjects, yet you expound on many of them like you are the worlds foremost expert in them.
But don't let an actual observation influence you. Not when actual facts usually fail to.....
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: The thing about the initial quotation is that (if accurately cited) those are numbers for incidence in a given year. That doesn't necessarily mean there was a problem for a full year, or even necessarily for a few full months. It certainly doesn't necessitate that a given person will have a problem next year.
Fascinating, as always, CT. If I may, does that mean I'm only considered to have a mental illness when my depression is active, or just that I'm only mentally ill at the time?
It might sounds like an odd question, but personally, I still consider myself to have a mental illness when I'm not depressed. It's just dormant and waiting for its next trigger. Which is another stressor in itself, but them's the breaks. It is a very stupid disease. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: PC terms only lower expectations for the human condition.
So, by your logic, I have higher expectations of a person with down's syndrome if I call him a mongoloid.
That you are wrong in your assessment is without question, but I am pretty interested in how you came to this hazy position.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: If I may, does that mean I'm only considered to have a mental illness when my depression is active, or just that I'm only mentally ill at the time?
It depends on who you are talking to and what disorder you are talking about. Language is politically charged, always, and the language of psychiatry is both nuanced and complex. The number referenced in the quotation above [almost certainly] includes everything from major depressive disorder to brief psychotic disorder to substance abuse, and so on, and so on.
As a diagnosis, 1. Major depressive disorder (single episode) is diagnosed by the presence of one major depressive episode. There is also a separate diagnosis of recurrent major depressive disorder. For recurrent episodes, the disorder is there, and episodes of it can be retriggered. But some people do only have one episode in their lifetimes. For circumstances with a single episode in the past, one has major depressive disorder, but it is not currently active. (see below)
2. Brief psychotic disorder by definition has symptoms that last only between 1 day and 1 month, and (also by definition) there is a return to normal functioning afterward.
3. Substance abuse is defined as maladaptive pattern of behavior using substances in ways leading to significant harms, although not having fulfilled the criteria for dependence. Those harms may have only occurred once, and the person may never have abused substances afterward (contrast with "sustance dependence").
When one is said to be "suffering" from a mental illness, the language can indicate active episodes occurred. But this depends on who is doing the talking or writing, and it's always a matter of slippery language trying to capture information that is nuanced and complex. It also can include someone who has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (single episode) with a single occurrence 5 years ago, and no problems with depression since. The latter sort of person is not the sort of person who would require the supports that the above poster attributes to him or her.
In fact, many of the people who may be included in that number do not require supports of any kind 1) any longer, or 2) most of the time, or 3) in an ongoing way. Many do, but that needs to be unpacked before the wild leaps of fancy taken here could be in any way substantiated.
Furthermore, whether you are "suffering" from depression between episodes is not something I'd rely on a report like this to decide -- by necessity, a summary report or summary statistics are going to take a more complex and detailed assessment and try to pare it down into understandable (short, brief, non-nuanced) terminology. So, outside the realm of statistics and in your own life, I'd personally say you get to make that call.
[ September 06, 2010, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Really?
What's the difference between a Mongeloid and and a Down Syndrome child?
What's the difference between a Negro and and an African American?
What's the difference between a midget and a little person?
What's the difference between a retard and....
What's the difference between a hyper kid and the ADHD one?
PC terms only lower expectations for the human condition.
There will always be disruptive and hyper kids... they now have a label and excuse for their behavior.
Will they perform better under this form of compassion?
To be honest, I sometimes have a bit of trouble trying to parse out the points. Doing a set up like Aseertion: X, Evidence- A, B, C might help make some of these arguments more clear.
Right now I am reading this as
Assertion: PC terms only lower expectations for the human condition.
Evidence: -Labeling someone a mongeloid leads to higher expectations than labeling them down's. -Labeling someone a Negro leads to higher expectations than labeling them African American. -etc.
The problem is that the evidence just seems like more assertions without evidence so it could also be that this should be parsed as a whole bunch of assertions with no evidence.
In response, I would say that the PC labels are often more specific and less likely to encompass someone's personhood, whereas the less PC terms are more of who they are. Though the inclusion of race with disorders like Down's and ADHD I find a bit disturbing in general.
Specificity matters. As a tutor, if I get a kid tagged with untreated ADHD, I do have certain expectations. I know from experience that I am going to have to take some care in where I seat the kid, I am going to have to pay more attention to them, I am going to use blue tokens instead of white (would take a bit to explain this). However, I have no intention of excusing misbehavior- in many ways, that tag tells me that I need to be more vigilant with the kid- ex- I like to start the session by talking to the kids. Usually I just chat long enough to get them to relax, with no specific time limit. With a ADHD kid, I might set a timer and tell the kid, we can chat for 3 minutes. I am much clearer with my rules and expectations and much less tolerant of deviance. I also give positive rewards more frequently and their are some slight changes in how I give the lessons. I have found that under these circumstances, I can get more out of the kids. When I see the label ADHD, I assume nothing about the child's intelligence or ability, because the label has told me nothing about that. If the kid were instead labeled "retard" I would have no clue what to expect and how to modify my behavior.
In my experience, the PC term will allow more specific help, not excuse the behavior. I know I will have problems with X, so I need to compensate by doing Y. The less PC term is usually used to degrade and minimize the individual overall. It is not used to allow for compensation. A hyper kid is just a brat- nothing you can do about it. An ADHD kid has certain specific problems that can be dealt with using specific techniques.
With medicine, having a diagnose of IBS does matter. There are drugs that have been shown to work with people with that diagnosis and so now, your wife's dr will go through those meds and treatments. Without that diagnosis, the dr would be just making a random guess. So, yeah, we don't know exact details, but now we have some reasonable expectations.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have IBS. As long as I avoid political OSC articles and things that make me angry, take my hyocyamine 2 times a day instead of 1 or not at all, don't drink coffee, or eat spicy food I'm pretty much OK. But there's a bit of a cycle. Hence, why I must not have political arguments with people or else I end up in terrible pain. Complete with ect.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: It also can include someone who has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (single episode) with a single occurrence 5 years ago, and no problems with depression since.
So, to make sure I got it, the 25% is more the number of people who have been mentally ill at some point, rather than how many people you can expect to be currently mentally ill at any given time?
And I can see where depression would be a tricky one. I've only been seriously depressed once, but I've had mild to moderte depression several times. None of them lasted two years (unless this one sticks around another month, but I think it's breaking) so I'm not technically dysthemic - unless I misunderstood the two year requirement. It's certainly come and gone for a longer period than two years.
And my GP is no help. I just filled out a little sheet I could have gotten off the internet and got the advice that "People generally know when they're depressed". Ha! Yeah, afterwards.
When it happens again, I may have to break down and get a shrink to ask for some advice. Hopefully we'll have more money by then. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by CT: It also can include someone who has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (single episode) with a single occurrence 5 years ago, and no problems with depression since.
So, to make sure I got it, the 25% is more the number of people who have been mentally ill at some point, rather than how many people you can expect to be currently mentally ill at any given time?
I cannot answer your question.
I do not know. This was the point of my comments. I used the "may" and "can" and "would need to be unpacked" [and "not necessarily" and "not necessitate"] language because I do not know which reference is being cited, so I cannot evaluate it. And frankly it isn't something I'm willing to take the time to go dig through anyway.
The point I was making was that it was not clear -- just from what was written -- who said what, and what it meant. For that, you'd need to track back through any reporter's or summary website's words to the original data analysis to figure out what was really going on. Anyone who wants to dig that far has my blessing.
But there are multiple possible interpretations to the phrasing as cited in this thread, and assumptions were being made that 1) there was only one interpretation, and 2) that was at an extreme end.
quote:When it happens again, I may have to break down and get a shrink to ask for some advice. Hopefully we'll have more money by then.
Oh heavens, good luck. Depression is so nasty in part because it undercuts your very ability to deal with it right to the core. I hope things go better for you in the future.
[ September 06, 2010, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote: I prefer the times of limited government, when Einstein was considered slow by his teacher, for not fitting in. Today, Einstein would be drugged and given SSI. Today, our government would've considered Einstein to be one of the 25% with a mental disorder and his parents would've been given the excuse to have low expectations of their "retarded" child.
If this is related to the "Einstein failed 4th grade math" meme, it's a myth, he never failed. If it's about something else entirely, I have no clue. Carry on.
quote:anal retentive have IBS
"Anal retentive" is part of a disproved psychological theory and has nothing to do with IBS. As I understand it, "retentive" is the opposite problem from IBS.
quote:We know they have different chromosomal levels, but we don't yet understand why that missing chromosome makes them all look and act the same. (Am I being stereotypical?)
Yes. You are.
quote:What's the difference between a Mongeloid and and a Down Syndrome child?
What's the difference between a Negro and and an African American?
What's the difference between a midget and a little person?
What's the difference between a retard and....
(...)
Will they perform better under this form of compassion?
Yes. Significantly better. Scholarette has already done a pretty good job of explaining this, but there is also the fact that people perform better when they feel respected, and if you think a kid with a mental disability can't tell, I have some folks who'd just looooove to meet and educate you.
*****
Mal, I don't like whistling posts. So I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and let you know that the term "retard" as you are using it is highly, highly offensive. I'm asking politely that you stop using it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Language is politically charged, always, and the language of psychiatry is both nuanced and complex. The number referenced in the quotation above [almost certainly] includes everything from major depressive disorder to brief psychotic disorder to substance abuse, and so on, and so on.