Please learn the difference between racialism and racism.
Greece's economy has been crumbling, and many all over the world are succumbing to madness. This feels like another test, but how am I to know if someone is deranged?
Don't force me to accept some verdict by law. I don't deserve that...
I have become sensitized to race after coming across numerous narratives by friends and strangers, where they mention race or nationality though that has nothing to do with what they are saying.
> Greece's economy has been crumbling...
Your point? Did you mean that Greeks are succumbing to madness?
> how am I to know if someone is deranged?
I am not a psychologist, so I can't pass diagnoses either. But some words of lay language express anger or contempt.
> Don't force me to accept some verdict by law.
I have no idea what you meant by that. I did not imply any force.
Why are you doing that? The sentence is "Greece's economy has been crumbling, and many all over the world are succumbing to madness."
Why would I respond to something you're explicitly divorcing from context? If you preserve what I say, you see that I clearly have an assessment nearing to the judgment that [many] in Greece are succumbing to madness.
Do I have a scientific basis for using words like "madness"? Well, would "deranged" be any better?
How about this?: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must passover in silence.
"But some words of lay language express anger or contempt."
wat ?
"I have no idea what you meant by that. I did not imply any force."
It is coincidence, then, that you suggest "deranged" which is in line in actual fact with his sentence: He was assigned to a mental institution. I can acknowledge that it happens, but I need not say it was the right thing to do. I can withhold opinion on the matter. "Deranged" suggests that he should be treated in a certain way — I have no opinion on how he ought to be treated, I just do not know, barring any generalization to similar cases.
But again: I say [Many] are succumbing, which translates to a statement like [Some] are succumbing, not [All] are succumbing, which is what [Greeks] are succumbing is most often interpreted as[1].
> Do I have a scientific basis for using words like "madness"? Well, would "deranged" be any better?
No. My point was that words like "mad" and "deranged" are part of lay language, and in lay use, only expresses a personal opinion, rather than a medical diagnosis.
> Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must passover in silence.
The irony is killing me.
> "Deranged" suggests that he should be treated in a certain way
It doesn't suggest any such thing. I'd use that word for any brutal murderer.
> Why would I respond to something you're explicitly divorcing from context?
Wat? I questioned the context. Not the same as "explicitly divorcing from context". I asked the question, just so you'd make your bias explicit.
"No. My point was that words like "mad" and "deranged" are part of lay language, and in lay use, only expresses a personal opinion, rather than a medical diagnosis."
Yes, personal opinion but of different models of analyses for explanation. "Mad" is a vaguer term than "deranged" (see Foucault's descriptivist/presciptivist politics). "Mad" is a pointing to "the cause is more complex than we think." "Deranged" is a pointing, most probably, to the DSM (for instance) as a guide.
"The irony is killing me."
This is not irony. You're taking my words out of context to re-purpose them as ammunition within an already complicated topic. If I said "this sentence is false" you very well might say that I'm invalidating everything I'm saying.
"It doesn't suggest any such thing. I'd use that word for any brutal murderer."
No, sir. "Deranged" and "mad" may have many overlaps, but they are not substitutible salva veritate.
You have not proved any bias. I'm saying that madness is prevalant, and sometimes can explain more than a quick leap into psychologizing. "Madness" does not mean that it was utterly free of will to manipulate the circumstances. Madness may have a causal basis as well, if not stronger than "psychological laws." (So here I am blocking the idea that because he was "just mad" he thought it convenient to manipulate the circumstances in his favor. I am saying that "madness," though vaguer than "derangement," has a stronger force that "derangment."
So your determination is that because people in a failed/failing economy are acting irrationally and succumbing to their baser instincts, that the aggressor in this case became mentally ill due to the economy? Are you going to claim next that mental illnesses are transmittable diseases? Are you of the mind that the aggressor was not mentally ill and was just 'faking it' to get out of jail?
Mereological study of parts and wholes applies here, along with small-world network algorithms. Internal causation is a real thing, and best explains various seemingly "utterly chance-like" statistical problems. I'm saying that the environment coupled with internal measures ultimately explain what occurred; from an outside perspective, all I can really depend on is an "external description" of the problem which attributes political and legal descriptions of the result, rather than strictly psychological. "Deranged" suggests a narrow line to the psychological; "mad" suggests a combination of issues which similarly seems to mirror the structure of "depression" which itself is a result of a combination of issues.
I subscribe to legal realism. Like I said, I don't know how we ought to treat him, which implies that I don't know much about the man himself. Legal systems analyze intention to come to (public) justice, not to ensure that the victim is redressed.
My position or statements are a comment on the adjacent, failing legal system. These governments and trade unions (via pharmaceutical industries) have become so thick with corruption that the theoretical construct of the "Observation Statement," emergent from Logical Positivism and Scientific Philosophy, is subjective to game-theoretical quantum systems.
Am I saying that ontologically mental illnesses are diseases?[1] That's a debate. However, Copycat suicide has warrantability or assertability conditions, and we can employ strategies that minimize the spread of disease to minimize the fluctuation of social statistical norm deviation, along time paradigmatic cycles.
Greece's economy has been crumbling, and many all over the world are succumbing to madness. This feels like another test, but how am I to know if someone is deranged?
Don't force me to accept some verdict by law. I don't deserve that...