2 ms·
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 cl
by 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 agoThere is nothing murky about schizophrenia. It is a clinically diagnosed condition that is largely held to be neurological.
- mercer 8y agoThe 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.