|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 10:48:39 GMT -6
Silly boy, he was NEVER dangerous. But he is in an isitiution because he is also in frail health. He is like 82 and has a number of health concerns. You said the words, "Crazy wild when he is off his meds" in addition to being a "hazard to the public". Tell me he was never dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2010 10:49:26 GMT -6
We're talking about mental illness here, not race. I see you have a soft spot for blacks; typically, you'd bring up the race argument when race is so far from the issue at hand. . Are you aware that blacks suffer from schizophrenia in a much larger percentage than other races? Just sayin'.  And, as Katie and Felix mention, the dangerous schizophrenics are the paranoid ones, and they're just a portion of those who suffer from the disease. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 10:52:32 GMT -6
We're talking about mental illness here, not race. I see you have a soft spot for blacks; typically, you'd bring up the race argument when race is so far from the issue at hand. The mere fact that this nutjob committed this crime earned him a spot in the news. Headaches do not qualify as a mental illness, last I checked. And you do not qualify as any sort of authority on the subject of what constitutes a mental illness, do you? No, I do not have any credentials to speak of in the field. I am a subject of mental illness. |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 26, 2010 10:54:53 GMT -6
Oh? So, you're saying that a large number of cannibalism cases occur because there was absolutely no other food choices at the time when a particular person was starving? Okay, I'll give you that; I'll concur that some folks just prefer the taste of human flesh as opposed to the double quater-pounder at the nearest McDonald's. After all, it's fresh meat, totally edible even when raw it seems. Of course, to eat human flesh, you have to kill - which makes you a murderer; and to sustain a consistent diet of this food preference, you essentially have to become a mass murderer. Now, correct me again if I'm wrong: Mental illness has nothing to do with this situation. If you answered YES to the above question, please refrain from your practice and check yourself in. Mental illness may well have nothing to do with this situation. You are missing another very pertinent reason why some people choose to eat others and why the victim sometimes on occasions will actually co-operate and desire that outcome. You simply dont know enough about psychiatry or human behaviour to be in a position to make such a determination or sweeping statement. You remind me of a young guy I know once who assumed all behaviours and happenings HE did not understand were due to mental illness. They were'nt, they were due to him not understanding. As for my practice, I practice closely with colleagues, lets make this understanding, I will pay attention to one of them if they ever suggest I might have issues preventing me from practicing rather than soem anonymous individual on a forum who has thus far illustrated he does not grasp the issues he presents an opinon on. |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 26, 2010 10:56:28 GMT -6
And you do not qualify as any sort of authority on the subject of what constitutes a mental illness, do you? No, I do not have any credentials to speak of in the field. I am a subject of mental illness. Explain that a bit more to me. You have not said anything yet that would lead me to0 say you are mentally ill, dumb maybe, but nothing indicating a current serious MI> |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 11:06:44 GMT -6
Would it matter now what I told you? It'd be so easy now to toss it back in my face and call me a liar. What the hell do you mean when you say that I haven't said anything that would make you believe I was mentally ill? Is there a certain way that crazy people type? You said, (as multiple others have echoed), that people with certain mental illnesses are intelligent; now, what better a marker of intelligence than being able to0 formulate sentences with proper structure and spelling? - to be proficient in an area in which we have the earliest experience>?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jan 26, 2010 11:11:39 GMT -6
Mostly he would write letters about how salt allowed aliens to take over your body and weird stuff like that.
Honestly, i think it was because his wife left him that did it. He did a BA/Masters program in 3 years. He was very smart, just now he is sick.
ANd again, he was never a danger, in fact, i would say he is IN more danger because of people like you, mcbox.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 11:13:40 GMT -6
Oh? So, you're saying that a large number of cannibalism cases occur because there was absolutely no other food choices at the time when a particular person was starving? Okay, I'll give you that; I'll concur that some folks just prefer the taste of human flesh as opposed to the double quater-pounder at the nearest McDonald's. After all, it's fresh meat, totally edible even when raw it seems. Of course, to eat human flesh, you have to kill - which makes you a murderer; and to sustain a consistent diet of this food preference, you essentially have to become a mass murderer. Now, correct me again if I'm wrong: Mental illness has nothing to do with this situation. If you answered YES to the above question, please refrain from your practice and check yourself in. Mental illness may well have nothing to do with this situation. You are missing another very pertinent reason why some people choose to eat others and why the victim sometimes on occasions will actually co-operate and desire that outcome. You simply dont know enough about psychiatry or human behaviour to be in a position to make such a determination or sweeping statement. You remind me of a young guy I know once who assumed all behaviours and happenings HE did not understand were due to mental illness. They were'nt, they were due to him not understanding. As for my practice, I practice closely with colleagues, lets make this understanding, I will pay attention to one of them if they ever suggest I might have issues preventing me from practicing rather than soem anonymous individual on a forum who has thus far illustrated he does not grasp the issues he presents an opinon on. . Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that a proper defense for the mentally ill, (in this case cannibalism), is the victims' consent?! |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 11:16:22 GMT -6
Mostly he would write letters about how salt allowed aliens to take over your body and weird stuff like that. Honestly, i think it was because his wife left him that did it. He did a BA/Masters program in 3 years. He was very smart, just now he is sick. ANd again, he was never a danger, in fact, i would say he is IN more danger because of people like you, mcbox. Is this an indirect retraction of your words that he is or was unpredictable and therefore dangerous? Or are we going to just say that he wrote letters and did weird stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jan 26, 2010 11:19:46 GMT -6
he was mostly weird but he did send letters to the pres, and the Secret Service DOES have to investigate. Every once in awhile, an agent will see him in the hospital, they will talk for an hour or so, and the agent will look over his medical records. Then the agent will leave and write a report. That was about all he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2010 11:23:29 GMT -6
He did a BA/Masters program in 3 years. He was very smart, just now he is sick. Intelligence has little to do with schizophrenia. Indeed, schizophrenics tend to be more intelligent than the general population. (IQ > 100) As do the genuinely dangerous mentally ill, for instance, sexual sadists, who tend to be very bright. |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jan 26, 2010 11:32:07 GMT -6
He did the college well before he started to have trouble. But right now, he is a sick, tired, feeble man that can barely get around without help. WTH danger is he?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 11:44:33 GMT -6
Okay Elric, with the exception of the enfeebled.
|
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 26, 2010 15:48:31 GMT -6
We're talking about mental illness here, not race. I see you have a soft spot for blacks; typically, you'd bring up the race argument when race is so far from the issue at hand. The mere fact that this nutjob committed this crime earned him a spot in the news. Headaches do not qualify as a mental illness, last I checked. Read reply #41. You said headaches did qualify as mental illness. Furthermore, I think we should clarify that only a small portion of the people with a diagnosable serious mental illness actually experience psychosis. Only a small portion of *those* experience a psychosis that would actually lead to them killing someone. Only a small portion of *those* people would actually eat someone in a state of psychosis. I'm guessing most people would have better odds of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than encountering one. You or I or Felix or DEE may have a better chance than most people of meeting up with one because of our careers, but I'd still be surprised if it happened. I have a soft spot for *people*. I brought up race because when you start deeming that people are sub-human because they are not privileged enough to be like you, it's an easy jump to make. Not far from the issue at hand at all, far as I can see. If someone is sub-human because of a mental illness, then what about a physical illness or defect that limits their possibilities? What if someone is quite stable and functional despite a history of mental illness? What about delusions or even major depression with no homicidal ideation? |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 18:18:38 GMT -6
Ah, you're referring to my sarcastic remark toward Felix. No, I have never believed and never will be convinced that headaches equal mental illness. Funny enough, in the following sentence on that post, I make the statement: "It's all about potential". I don't care if they've never hurt a fly their entire life. The fact remains that severe mental illness imbalances perception and therefore creates a level of danger that would not otherwise be there under normal circumstances.
What's even more peculiar is the fact that the one time, on the job, I was assaulted by an inmate in the psych wing at my unit. He 'chunked' a cup full of urine and rotten milk in my face simply because I would not give him an extra food tray - an item no offender is entitled to. Depending on the month, I meet up with the criminally insane about twice per week. The next time I have the opportunity, I'll ask the offender, (who entertains himself by head-butting his cell wall until he knocks himself out), if he would ever hurt me for no reason at all.
Privileged enough to be like what? I include myself in my synopsis.
If the scope of your bleeding heart extended beyond the ebony race, then surely, people in general would have excused your prior focus. Am I comparing my skin to theirs? No. We are all equal until, collectively, our personalities, perceptions and emotions (of the brain and mind - which are the cores of what defines a human) are altered.
In respect to your argument of physical illness and/or dysfunction, I find inadmissible because, as far as I know, no virus/bacteria/deformation/disability causes a victim's mental stability to be weakened. If there is, I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2010 20:37:28 GMT -6
I don't care if they've never hurt a fly their entire life. The fact remains that severe mental illness imbalances perception and therefore creates a level of danger that would not otherwise be there under normal circumstances. I do care. That's not the way our criminal justice system works. Until such time as the persons you describe present a real and present danger to public safety, they should not be confined. And the best predictor of future violence is past violence. This is why we take past violent acts into accounting when adjudicating the DP. You stand corrected, then. You have much to learn about human anatomy and physiology, and the processes of a plethora of diseases. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 26, 2010 22:13:43 GMT -6
I don't care if they've never hurt a fly their entire life. The fact remains that severe mental illness imbalances perception and therefore creates a level of danger that would not otherwise be there under normal circumstances. I do care. That's not the way our criminal justice system works. Until such time as the persons you describe present a real and present danger to public safety, they should not be confined. And the best predictor of future violence is past violence. This is why we take past violent acts into accounting when adjudicating the DP. You stand corrected, then. You have much to learn about human anatomy and physiology, and the processes of a plethora of diseases. I did not say they should be confined. I said they were dangerous due to unpredictability. Just as in the link I gave to the paranoid schizophrenic who randomly stabbed a young man to death after having no prior evidence of violent behavior. That's all good and fine, but, can you give me some references as to what types of diseases or disabilities affect normal mental processes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 22:31:09 GMT -6
1. Since capital punishment exists merely for the feeling/the sense of justice rather than its deterrence which is of big controversy, I don't understand why there is so much oproar when mentally ill are sentenced to death. "It's not their fault, it's their illness" people say. I am not a pro-DP, and I don't believe mentally ill criminals should be imprisoned, but they should be subject to commitment to a psychiatric unit and treated for their illness. Imprisoning them will only worsening their illness. But if there should be capital punishment, I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment. After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual. First off, it is not like the individual is going to be rehabilitated in any way - for example deterred from committing a crime again, and thus it makes no sense neither to treat the mentally ill. It will only hurt the sense of justice for those who believe in capital punishment. People assume that if a person is mentally ill then any crime he or she commits must be a consequence of this illness. This is not necessarily so. It's perfectly possible for a person to commit an offence that is not related to their mental illness. Equally we must remember that mental illness is not a constant state and a person can suffer only periodic problems. This is what often makes it so difficult to establish exactly what went on in someone's mind when they pulled the trigger or used the knife. |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 27, 2010 3:28:10 GMT -6
A person who murders/rapes/tortures without prejudice most definitely carries one of those 'serious mental illnesses' that is the subject here. You sit there with your professional mouth and tell me that mental illness does not promote mental instability and unpredictability. You said yourself that those almighty psychiatrists who suffer from schizophrenia have to stop and put themselves in check from time to time. Now, what if one of them didn't? What, in a worst case scenario, could possibly happen? I have an uncle that was diagnosed with schizophrenia back in the late 90's, so I know just as well how violent the outlashings can be. Thats what folk like me are for, when that worst case scenario happens I use the Mental Health Act accordingly, but also keep in mind the need to use the least restrictive respopnse consistent with the management of risk. As for the people you work wiht in your Institution, what makes you assume the guy chucked whatever over you simply because he is ill, let me make a few observations- first you refer to people as "inmates" and you express the view they are sub-human, or at least in someway less that you are. Dont you think there is even the remotest possibility that folk there pick up on what attitude you communicate to them with all of its offensiveness? Oh yes, or is it easier to blame their mental illness for their response to you rather than your offensive perception of them? Take some time to consider that their response might not be due to illness at all but due to your offensive attitude tio them |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 27, 2010 3:30:58 GMT -6
Mental illness may well have nothing to do with this situation. You are missing another very pertinent reason why some people choose to eat others and why the victim sometimes on occasions will actually co-operate and desire that outcome. You simply dont know enough about psychiatry or human behaviour to be in a position to make such a determination or sweeping statement. You remind me of a young guy I know once who assumed all behaviours and happenings HE did not understand were due to mental illness. They were'nt, they were due to him not understanding. As for my practice, I practice closely with colleagues, lets make this understanding, I will pay attention to one of them if they ever suggest I might have issues preventing me from practicing rather than soem anonymous individual on a forum who has thus far illustrated he does not grasp the issues he presents an opinon on. . Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that a proper defense for the mentally ill, (in this case cannibalism), is the victims' consent?! Of course not, because he was not mentally ill in the first place. In the case I refer to the driving force behind both therie actions was sexual, both were homosexuals. Nothing at all to do with mental illness at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 27, 2010 3:33:23 GMT -6
Would it matter now what I told you? It'd be so easy now to toss it back in my face and call me a liar. What the hell do you mean when you say that I haven't said anything that would make you believe I was mentally ill? Is there a certain way that crazy people type? You said, (as multiple others have echoed), that people with certain mental illnesses are intelligent; now, what better a marker of intelligence than being able to0 formulate sentences with proper structure and spelling? - to be proficient in an area in which we have the earliest experience >? The starting point for me with issues around mental illness, is the same for capacity, ie: the assumption that nobody is mentally ill until the evidence is present. In your case holding offensive and ill informed views about a group in society does not exactly constitute evidence for mental illness. Besides if you werer mentally ill, by your own definitions does this not exclude you from having a view in any case by virtue of your sub-human status? |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 27, 2010 3:34:23 GMT -6
1. Since capital punishment exists merely for the feeling/the sense of justice rather than its deterrence which is of big controversy, I don't understand why there is so much oproar when mentally ill are sentenced to death. "It's not their fault, it's their illness" people say. I am not a pro-DP, and I don't believe mentally ill criminals should be imprisoned, but they should be subject to commitment to a psychiatric unit and treated for their illness. Imprisoning them will only worsening their illness. But if there should be capital punishment, I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment. After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual. First off, it is not like the individual is going to be rehabilitated in any way - for example deterred from committing a crime again, and thus it makes no sense neither to treat the mentally ill. It will only hurt the sense of justice for those who believe in capital punishment. People assume that if a person is mentally ill then any crime he or she commits must be a consequence of this illness. This is not necessarily so. It's perfectly possible for a person to commit an offence that is not related to their mental illness. Equally we must remember that mental illness is not a constant state and a person can suffer only periodic problems. This is what often makes it so difficult to establish exactly what went on in someone's mind when they pulled the trigger or used the knife. Very pertinent points raised here by Michael. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 27, 2010 6:37:40 GMT -6
I understand that this can be a possibility, but can you imagine how often this actually occurs? Of course nobody with an illness is constantly subject to its most debilitating effects, but what they are subject to is their constant potential - which just happens to be my entire point in this undying argument.
First of all, I do not provoke inmates into acting out against me. We are all taught this, despite it being a natural thread of common sense. I denied this inmate what he was in no way entitled to, and he simply refused 'no' as a response. I do not offend any incarcerated person by referring to them as an inmate; they know as well as I do that the title is a matter-of-fact and not something I imposed upon them. If I know their last name, I will use it.
Felix, please. Homosexuals do not eat people - cannibals do. I am not claiming that every crazy person on the planet does kill or that every killer is crazy. I have never claimed that. I'll say it one last time just for the record: The truly mentally ill can never be trusted, because they are without the natural restraints of conscience, self-control, regard for consequence and fear of punishment. In my opinion, these are the most dangerous kinds of people because they are naturally less than human - but still retain the ability to harm those around them.
No Felix, it does not inhibit my ability to hold a position on the subject. You make it very hard for me to believe that you are a professional of any kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 27, 2010 7:58:25 GMT -6
Ah, you're referring to my sarcastic remark toward Felix. No, I have never believed and never will be convinced that headaches equal mental illness. Funny enough, in the following sentence on that post, I make the statement: "It's all about potential". I don't care if they've never hurt a fly their entire life. The fact remains that severe mental illness imbalances perception and therefore creates a level of danger that would not otherwise be there under normal circumstances. What's even more peculiar is the fact that the one time, on the job, I was assaulted by an inmate in the psych wing at my unit. He 'chunked' a cup full of urine and rotten milk in my face simply because I would not give him an extra food tray - an item no offender is entitled to. Depending on the month, I meet up with the criminally insane about twice per week. The next time I have the opportunity, I'll ask the offender, (who entertains himself by head-butting his cell wall until he knocks himself out), if he would ever hurt me for no reason at all. Privileged enough to be like what? I include myself in my synopsis. If the scope of your bleeding heart extended beyond the ebony race, then surely, people in general would have excused your prior focus. Am I comparing my skin to theirs? No. We are all equal until, collectively, our personalities, perceptions and emotions (of the brain and mind - which are the cores of what defines a human) are altered. In respect to your argument of physical illness and/or dysfunction, I find inadmissible because, as far as I know, no virus/bacteria/deformation/disability causes a victim's mental stability to be weakened. If there is, I stand corrected. Perhaps you should label your sarcasm better, since your non-sarcastic remarks are so off-the-wall it's difficult to distinguish when you're being facetious. Are you aware that every single human being has potential for a psychotic break? And again, I ask - what about those with a serious mental illness who are not psychotic - which is MOST people who deal with an SMI?? Do you realize that you're talking about 1 in 5 Americans age 18-54?? Your emotions, empathy, and conscience appear to be altered. Can I refer to you as a subhuman as well? I know there are diseases that weaken ones mental functioning. Syphillis and muscular dystrophy are what come to mind immediately. I do know that I can diagnose several types of mental disorders (dementia, catatonia, psychosis, mood disorder, etc.) due to a general medical condition. That wouldn't be a possible diagnosis if it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 27, 2010 9:09:39 GMT -6
Yeah, and maybe I should head everything I write with its intended tone. Seriously, why are you arguing with me, (the person who is not a professional psychiatrist, *ahem* Felix), as I am not the originator of the headache claim.
You are misunderstanding something: we are not discussing people who are not currently suffering from a diagnosed mental illness. If, in their defining moment, they harm someone or themselves - then, so what?
Yes, you can call me whatever you like. It is merely your opinion, which might also be a fact; but if sub-human is what I am, then, again, so what? Besides, what pride, if any, do we have left in light of some of the sorriest excuses for people we know/knew as 'human'?
Your last commentary is noted. Yes, those people are now included.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 27, 2010 16:00:13 GMT -6
and it appears (again) that antipro didn't really want to understand things about the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrbubble on Jan 27, 2010 18:01:04 GMT -6
1. Since capital punishment exists merely for the feeling/the sense of justice rather than its deterrence which is of big controversy, I don't understand why there is so much oproar when mentally ill are sentenced to death. "It's not their fault, it's their illness" people say.
I am not a pro-DP, and I don't believe mentally ill criminals should be imprisoned, but they should be subject to commitment to a psychiatric unit and treated for their illness. Imprisoning them will only worsening their illness. But if there should be capital punishment, I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment. After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual.
Capital punishment, like all criminal punishment, exists for purposes of retribution, deterrence, and incapactitation. Whether we agree with it or not, the courts have held that when someone who is mentally retarded kills another, its not an "evil" enough act to warrant death. The rationale is similar to when someone kills another by accident. The harm is still extremely severe, but the guilty party is not seen to have the same degree of culpability.
2. When talking about DP because of people's sense of justice, I ask you: What about MY sense of justice? I'm offended by the capital punishment. Why don't my sense of justice count as much as those 65-70 % who are pro-DPs? Death comes to us all sooner or later, but killing another human being, be it another individual - or in this case - the government - hurts my sense of justice.
Well, aren't you special. Prisons hurt some peoples' sense of justice, but I don't see us getting rid of them anytime soon. The United States is a democracy, and its criminal justice system represents the values of the majority of society, that those who commit the most severe kinds of murders must pay with their own lives.
3. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Killing a human being for killing another only makes two killings. One family may have their justice, but the other family, the offender's/crimal's family will lose a family member too - and remember - that family is just as innocent as the victim's family!
Tell me, when the government puts someone in prison, isn't it kidnapping? When the government gives someone a parking ticket and demands money from them, is that robbery? The government is allowed to do things that everyday citizens cannot, and this is so that it might maintain a safe and just society.
|
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 27, 2010 20:42:28 GMT -6
Yeah, and maybe I should head everything I write with its intended tone. It would help us all.  As I recall, he's the one who asked you if you thought he was subhuman because of his headaches and you answered in the affirmative. I'm not arguing with Felix because I don't disagree with him. You lost me. AGAIN, there are people WHO ARE SUFFERING from a diagnosed mental illness and THEY ARE NOT PSYCHOTIC. THEY DO NOT EAT PEOPLE OR KILL PEOPLE. Perhaps you need me to clarify that schizophrenia is not the only mental illness in the world, although I suppose that's a common misconception as well. And then I suppose I should clarify that schizophrenia rarely looks like the picture most people have in their heads of a murderous psycho. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Jan 28, 2010 4:31:25 GMT -6
According to this site: www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid=3-105&lang=1 - the recollection of psychosis by one sufferer states that at the time of its onset, he/she did not feel like anything was wrong. Then, we have the support of various types of conditions that carry psychosis. Now, I'm not sure which population they are referring to, but they do state that psychosis is a common medical condition. I have a small scenario for you - in defense of my original claim that people with mental illness/disorder cannot be trusted: You are in need of a babysitter; you have one of two choices. Those choices are, of course: A. The mentally competent middle-aged woman, or B. The sitter with a history of mental disorder/illness with our without recorded psychosis. FOR ALL FUTURE REFERENCE, TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT IMPROVE MY DESIRE TO SWAY TO YOUR ARGUMENT. |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 28, 2010 6:10:15 GMT -6
I understand that this can be a possibility, but can you imagine how often this actually occurs? Of course nobody with an illness is constantly subject to its most debilitating effects, but what they are subject to is their constant potential - which just happens to be my entire point in this undying argument. First of all, I do not provoke inmates into acting out against me. We are all taught this, despite it being a natural thread of common sense. I denied this inmate what he was in no way entitled to, and he simply refused 'no' as a response. I do not offend any incarcerated person by referring to them as an inmate; they know as well as I do that the title is a matter-of-fact and not something I imposed upon them. If I know their last name, I will use it. Felix, please. Homosexuals do not eat people - cannibals do. I am not claiming that every crazy person on the planet does kill or that every killer is crazy. I have never claimed that. I'll say it one last time just for the record: The truly mentally ill can never be trusted, because they are without the natural restraints of conscience, self-control, regard for consequence and fear of punishment. In my opinion, these are the most dangerous kinds of people because they are naturally less than human - but still retain the ability to harm those around them.No Felix, it does not inhibit my ability to hold a position on the subject. You make it very hard for me to believe that you are a professional of any kind. Your difficulty and hence your barrier to understand may be seeing statements in general terms. I am aware that homosexuals do not eat people, I merely referred to an instance when two did engage in that activity, homosexuals can for the same sexual enjoyment for that matter, please re-read and try to understand what I in factb wrote and dont ascribe assertions/genral sweeping statements to my comments that were simply not made. Many thanks |
|
