Teague wrote:Spearthrower wrote:Teague wrote:Spearthrower wrote:Sendraks' post contains precisely zero assertions: they are all questions.
some who is an expert like Rachel?
Ahh, I see! You mean 'claim', not 'assertion'. Assertions are necessarily declarative in sentence structure, not interrogative. The offending part of the speech there is actually a relative clause.
But let's grant you the benefit of the doubt there.
You named 'assertions', plural. What other ones did Sendraks allegedly make?
Incidentally, I think everyone reading knows that the manner of your response evaded actually answering those questions.
So allow me to restate them so you can actually answer them, and I will remove the offending relative clause.
On what basis are you challenging that?
'That' indicating my previous post
The act of killing people alone is categorically not seen as a mental illness, or no one would ever be charged of murder or manslaughter as they'd automatically be deemed unfit to stand trial on account of mental illness.
What expertise do you have to mount a coherent challenge against some who is an expert? In this case, we can supplant 'Rachel' with 'professional doctors' and 'judges'.
Was this answer not satisfactory?
So what if all murders become a mental health issue? Are you saying we shouldn't try and treat people with this illness? What about seeing the signs before they murder someone? How about should they have thoughts of murdering someone, they know there's some support they can get?
There would be no such charge of 'murder' if it was simply seen as a behavior of mental illness and consequent diminished responsibility.
Not really as it doesn't answer my questions at all. All I am seeing is you saying:
well if we defined it differently than we do now, then I would be right.In such a parallel universe, I might also redefine the word 'right' to mean 'wrong'.
Teague wrote:Ok so a claim, excuse my syntax though when I said "more assertions" I was talking about the ones so far in this thread which I thought was obvious - did I directly say they where his assertions or allude to that - if so, that wasn't my intent?
Yes, in fact you did directly say that they were assertions, which is why I replied directly to it.
Teague wrote:We can keep arguing syntax all day if you want - I'm here till 6pm UK time
Not at all, although I don't mind if you'd like to. Instead, what I'd like to do is to pin you down to supporting the many claims you've made across this thread. Essentially, you are saying that in the future we might have more knowledge than we do now, and in such a case, your position would be correct. But we are not in that future, we are here now and we can only base knowledge claims on that which we can show to be true. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support your position in the medical literature, but instead of dismissing your claim out of hand, I have passed the ball back to you asking for the necessary support for your position.
It may well be that you've phrased your points throughout a bit more declaratively than you really meant to, in which case I'd suggest posting a 'sorry, I meant to say it like this...' post, and we can all go on about our business of discussing the topic.
Teague wrote:Can you tell me what Rachel's field is before she comes along and helps you out?
Firstly, I have never claimed any knowledge of Rachel's field of expertise. I haven't appealed to it, or even mentioned it aside from to elide it from a question you'd previously evaded.
The only member whose professional expertise in this field I've alluded to was Shrunk, as he's a professional psychiatrist.
Regardless, I don't really need anyone to 'help me out' here, because my position is quite simple: I would like to see evidence drawn from sources in the medical literature, which support the notion that any time a murder occurs, it is the result of mental illness, or that the act of murder necessarily indicates that the perpetrator is suffering mental illness.
by 
