4 ms·

His behavior was appalling. The reasons behind it were tragic. How can we pretend that either of those things aren't true?

omeid2 8y ago
Okay, it is almost unquestionably certain that as a kid you had to wear nappies and so when you were young, you did the uncomfortable regularly, yet we don't consider it as your legacy or worst yet call it "appalling, and that is what you are", for the very simple reason that you were mentally incapable of comprehending your actions and it's consequences. It is true that you had to wear nappies but also mind-numbingly stupid to consider it as your legacy or insist that "it is appalling and it is true".
- mercer 8y ago
  While I understand your point, I do agree with dagenix as well. Not because I think Terry's condition is 'no excuse', but rather because I don't think we can cleanly make a distinction between someone like Terry and the rest of us. Sure, he more obviously acted in ways that seemed an 'involuntary' result of his condition, but quite frankly much of the horrible shit I see people do or hear people say can be considered 'mental health issues' to various degrees. It's a murky area. Terry's condition makes it both easier to judge him and excuse his behavior, depending on your perspective. I think getting away from those two extremes is probably the better way to go: be able to openly consider a person's behavior appalling and find understanding this shouldn't be considered an 'appalling person' as a result.
  - omeid2 8y ago
    There is nothing murky about schizophrenia. It is a clinically diagnosed condition that is largely held to be neurological.
    - mercer 8y ago
      The murky part is all the other stuff. I don't believe that being a diagnosed condition or able to point out a clear neurological cause invalidates all the other stuff that other people struggle with. In many cases we probably just can't diagnose it well enough. To be clear, I'm not at all arguing that we should have less sympathy or make less room for people like Terry, rather the opposite, and acknowledging that their behavior can be appalling can, in the right context, be a good thing for both them and others. Perhaps this is not the right context for that argument, but that was what I was trying to say.

omeid2 8y ago

Okay, it is almost unquestionably certain that as a kid you had to wear nappies and so when you were young, you did the uncomfortable regularly, yet we don't consider it as your legacy or worst yet call it "appalling, and that is what you are", for the very simple reason that you were mentally incapable of comprehending your actions and it's consequences. It is true that you had to wear nappies but also mind-numbingly stupid to consider it as your legacy or insist that "it is appalling and it is true".

mercer 8y ago
While I understand your point, I do agree with dagenix as well. Not because I think Terry's condition is 'no excuse', but rather because I don't think we can cleanly make a distinction between someone like Terry and the rest of us. Sure, he more obviously acted in ways that seemed an 'involuntary' result of his condition, but quite frankly much of the horrible shit I see people do or hear people say can be considered 'mental health issues' to various degrees. It's a murky area. Terry's condition makes it both easier to judge him and excuse his behavior, depending on your perspective. I think getting away from those two extremes is probably the better way to go: be able to openly consider a person's behavior appalling and find understanding this shouldn't be considered an 'appalling person' as a result.
- omeid2 8y ago
  There is nothing murky about schizophrenia. It is a clinically diagnosed condition that is largely held to be neurological.
  - mercer 8y ago
    The murky part is all the other stuff. I don't believe that being a diagnosed condition or able to point out a clear neurological cause invalidates all the other stuff that other people struggle with. In many cases we probably just can't diagnose it well enough. To be clear, I'm not at all arguing that we should have less sympathy or make less room for people like Terry, rather the opposite, and acknowledging that their behavior can be appalling can, in the right context, be a good thing for both them and others. Perhaps this is not the right context for that argument, but that was what I was trying to say.