That’s easy. Just believe that the people you’re enslaving aren’t human.
But many crazy people reveal their condition in a few sentences. Not so Brown or Guiteau.
This is a good thing. Slavers, like Nazis, child molesters, and other horrible human beings SHOULD be filled with fear and terror, until they stop their enslaving ways. And if the only way for America to get there was a Civil War, then anything that hastens a Union victory is a good thing.
Are we supposed to feel bad for these people? Why don’t you quote some descriptions of what life was like for the slaves under the system James Doyle and his sons were a part of? Ending that kind of suffering justifies violence.
I’d say the amount of violence appropriate to stop modern racial injustice would be lower than the amount of violence appropriate to stop slavery by about the same ratio that modern racial injustice is less unjust than the system of chattel slavery present in the past. That seems like a very clear and simple distinction so I’m not really sure how anyone could possibly be confused by it.
Again, you seem to be conflating ‘crazy’ with ‘legally insane’ and again, you don’t need to be obviously ‘crazy’ to be legally insane.
No, but it sure helps.
John Brown was a fanatic and also probably schizophrenic. My brother “hears” god talking to him. He has been diagnosed schizophrenic, and when he takes his meds he does not hear voices.
I asked him how he could tell the difference between the “other” voices he hears and god’s voice,…I told him that despite prayer, god never talked to me.
. He told me:…“Tim,… god doesn’t talk to you,…he talks to me”.
I agree with this, and it is for this reason that I in turn am concerned with fringe conspiracy theories like QAnon. Because it’s the sort of thing that, if believed, should provoke a violent response. Like, if there really were secret cabals of politicians and the ultra-rich engaged in harvesting children for sex and bodily fluids, and their influence was such that the law truly was powerless to stop them, then violence would absolutely be called for.
The difference between slavery and the QAnon conspiracy theories is that, first and foremost, slavery actually happened and was happening in John Brown’s lifetime. Second, slavery as alleged and as actually practiced wasn’t the result of some secret cabal happening just out of sight of an ignorant population: it was actually enshrined into law and practiced openly with the support of the law, so in that sense it was actually much worse than what the QAnon conspiracy theorists allege.
Finally, a QAnon conspiracy theorist, were they to act as John Brown did, would be operating contrary to the actual facts. Possibly according to some delusion, but definitely not consistent with actual reality.
John Brown, on the other hand, acted wholly consistent with observable reality. He drew certain moral conclusions which I happen to believe were largely correct, and acted accordingly. Whether he might have arrived at different actions through greater calculation I cannot say. I can only note that as history actually played out, he was largely vindicated: violence was necessary and appropriate to bring an end to the gross assaults upon mankind perpetrated by slavers and their enablers. Doubtless John Brown could have done more in that cause and even lived to tell of it had he waited a few years for the Civil War, but he perhaps (understandably) may not have imagined just how utterly delusional southern leaders really were: that the slavers themselves would be the ones to provoke the conflict that would see chattel slavery’s end in the United States.
So John Brown was a tragic figure perhaps, for having been just a few years ahead of his time (when war could be waged against slavery under the protection of the law), but hardly crazy (absent a lot more evidence).
To my view, Brown knew exactly what he was doing. And I regard what he did as morally ambiguous, given the horrors of slavery. He merely used the religious iconography and themes, common to his time, to oppose slavery. If he was around in the 1950s, he would have invoked Marx and Class Struggle.
Guiteau? Serious mental health issues. Plenty of evidence. Facing it square on, Guiteau’s trial had nothing to do with his sanity, or guilt. Rather, it reflects the fact that John Wilkes Booth never went to trial, and Guiteau’s trial was the Nation’s revenge on Booth.
In sum, Brown created an organization, & Guiteau was too nuts to sort his sock drawer.
You are basing this off what? Where did John Brown say he literally talked to God? A few people in this thread made that claim but I haven’t seen anyone else make it.
So if a person hears an allegory, and find the message worthwhile enough that they seek to apply it to their own life, that makes them crazy?
I’m not theistic at all, but I can see that it is possible that some people go to church and take from it guidance on how to live their life. There’s nothing about that which strikes me as delusional.
I find it fascinating that I person could internalize the plain words of Jesus Christ and be branded a fanatic as a result.
You could say the same thing about Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Both were equally as religious as John Brown.
I can see I’m going to have to expand my definition of “religious nutjob.” Does anyone know Brown’s position on religious tolerance?
OK, I can see calling Brown a fanatic. But the next question then is, is that a bad thing? Brown was a fanatic to a good cause. Plenty of people are fanatics about things that are completely morally neutral, like a sports team. And some people are fanatics to bad causes.
I do not know of any religion admitting that medicine could prevent the true voice of a real God from coming though. That there is a medicine which does stop the voice of “god” says volumes more about that “god” than the Bible does.
Believing in the words of the Bible and acting upon them is categorically different from hearing the words of god in one’s head and acting on them. That’s one reason why the former is not considered crazy and the latter is. Conflating them just redefines reality to suit one’s prejudices.
Another reason is that we live in a tacit christian theocracy. But that’s a matter for another thread.
You do understand that bit the Jews and Muslims both believe God gave them a set of rules to follow, yes? In fact, believing that God has sent you a set of at least guidelines, is more or less the cornerstone of all religion.
To say that someone having faith makes them an " unpleasant person I would cross the street to avoid talking to", means that you are crossing the street for about 90% of the population.
What Brown did was kill evil slaveholders and those that espoused slavery, just like the Union Army did. His attack was in retaliation for the “Sack of Lawrence,”, where s the pro-slavery faction looted, destroyed and burnt.
Jews and Muslims don’t believe that Christ was divine (and Jews actively consider him a misguided Jew) and don’t celebrate Christmas, as you may be aware. It is more polite to wish them “Happy Holidays” (or “Roll, Tide”) than to tell them that you would like them to acknowledge your own holiday while ignoring theirs.
As to crossing the street to avoid talking to religious nutjobs, I have the advantage of ignorance as to the religious beliefs of many of those I see on the street, so I’m really going out of my way to avoid maybe the 1% or fewer who give outward signs of nutjobbery, but thanks for your sincere concern about my problems in walking the streets unmolested by unpleasant people.
A total non sequitur. You do know that they have their own holidays, right?
What does any of this have to do with what’s being discussed here?
It is a direct response to Dr. Deth’s patronizing question
If you would put in the time and effort required to read my post through to the next sentence, you may notice that the next sentence ends with the word “theirs,” referring to Jews’ and Moslems’ holidays, enabling you to draw the conclusion that I am in fact aware that Jews and Moslems have their own holidays.