The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[StylishHokie21]

The thing that's amazing is, for how long this debate/argument has been going on, they haven't gotten to the point of flaming each other.

I salute both of them for that.

I came on here while eating dinner and saw how long those last two responses were and almost started choking on my food lol.

I'm surprised as well. There's usually a flame war that starts half way through.

 

[TheBatman072]

LOL! Did you read the dialogue? He's talking about legalizing Joker fish. Joker fish.

And that was a point I was making to Infinity999x, who was trying to claim that Joker's focus was on killing, rather than trying to get his Joker fish made legal.

Copyright, not legalize.

 

[TheBat812]

There is no 'correct' interpretation of the Joker. Whether he has makeup or not simply is to provide motivation for the character. What makes the Joker the Joker is his manic antics and love for mayhem, whether it be for money or because it makes him laugh. Obviously his appearance should remain intact, but the motivation behind that is only to influence character in a certain direction. You can say it's 'canon' that he was bathed in chemicals to create his appearance all you want, but that alone does not make it the best interpretation. Yes, it can add to his character that he's been forced to become this character, but to me, it feels much more in character for him to have chosen this path himself. That's what makes him insane and terrifying, to me.

 

[deathfromabove]

So what specifically makes him a psychopath? When has The Joker displayed shizophrenia?

look up the clinical definition of psychopath and then get back to me. the joker is one. im tired of repeating myself.

and the joker was portrayed as a schizophrenic in arkham asylum and more recently in lovers and madmen. im sure i can find at least a few more if i dwell on it.

also look up schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder. also (if you can find it) look up the criteria for the diagonosis of these specific psychopathologies. and then explain how the joker, at one time or another, does not qualify.

and lastly, if "insane" is too much of a buzzword in the common usage by what standard are you judging the joker's mental state? because you seem to be basing this of some sort of personal definition/standard and not rational dissemination with any kind of basis in fact or psychological criteria. meaning you are basing your argument on some sort of personal/emotional opinion of the facts and not the facts themselves.

 

[Saint]

Guard seems to be using the legal definition--which is that one is not "insane" unless one A) cannot distinguish between right and wrong, or B) cannot control his or her own actions.

Back in high school my law professor described it as such: if a man believes God speaks to him and orders him to kill, he is not legally insane. He has the capacity to judge right and wrong, and that his judgments are different from ours does not qualify him as insane. Only when he cannot make the distinction is he insane.

The Joker both understands the difference between right and wrong and is in control of his actions. Legally, he is not insane. The reason Guard is using the legal definition, I suspect, is because all alternatives are vague and non-specific. "Insanity" has lost most of it's meaning in our vernacular and has degenerated into a blanket term describing all manner or mental irregularities. For the sake of clarity, it makes sense to use the legal definition. If you are only interested in a generalized, unspecific and non-descript label for the Joker, then yes, he is "insane." In a clearer, specific, technical description, though, he is probably not.

 

[The Battousai]

Guard seems to be using the legal definition--which is that one is not "insane" unless one A) cannot distinguish between right and wrong, or B) cannot control his or her own actions.

Back in high school my law professor described it as such: if a man believes God speaks to him and orders him to kill, he is not legally insane. He has the capacity to judge right and wrong, and that his judgments are different from ours does not qualify him as insane. Only when he cannot make the distinction is he insane.

The Joker both understands the difference between right and wrong and is in control of his actions. Legally, he is not insane. The reason Guard is using the legal definition, I suspect, is because all alternatives are vague and useless. "Insanity" has lost most of it's meaning in our vernacular and has degenerated into a blanket term describing all manner or mental irregularities. For the sake of clarity, it makes sense to use the legal definition. If you are only interested in a generalized, unspecific and non-descript label for the Joker, then yes, he is "insane." In a clearer, specific, technical description, though, he is probably not.

Not sure why anyone wants him to be insane, anyway. Evil seems much more malicious when it comes from someone in control of their mental faculties.

I think a reason for its use is that "insane" is only used in the legal sense (although people don't know this for the most part) - when speaking of actual psychosis and such, "insane" doesn't really cut it.

 

[Sidepocket]

Hay! Not trying to argue (its pointless, we are all selfish snobs) but I found this awesome picture at Batman-on-Film. I think it really shows not only the difference between Heath and Jack, but also how different in town Burton is from Nolan:

Cool no?

 

[Mr. Superhero]

I think people are still confusing "sane" with "normal" or "non deviant". Clearly The Joker's exploits are not remotely normal and are very deviant. I won't begin to argue that. But I don't think that just because his actions are incredibly deviant, that this is enough to declare him insane.

"It's not who I am underneath...it's what I do that defines me."

You can argue about how the Joker is "mentally sound", but his actions suggest otherwise, and that is the only way to define a person. Actions speaks louder than words. And it just so happens that most of Joker's actions can be defined by synonyms for "insane".

Heh -- even Batman says that Joker is "insane" in "The Long Halloween"...

Maybe. Or maybe society just ASSUMES you must be, and labels you based on your actions.

If the Joker's actions are that of an "insane" man, factually speaking -- then why do you say that he is not insane? The facts are against you.

I don't have to name them. There are lists devoted to them. Google "The most evil men and women in history". Look at the lists people have come up with. Very few of these people can be considered insane

I'm sure the dictionary would disagree with you, since performing evil deeds represents irrationality, immoderation and senselessness. The facts are against you.

You keep saying that the Joker isn't insane, yet the dictionary, all unofficial sources, and Alan Moore strongly disagree with you.

You're going to have to explain to me how the "power" thing doesn't apply to what The Joker does as well, and how he doesn't derive material pleasure from what he does. And he most certainly did kill for material things at one point, and still does from time to time. What's the difference before the chemical bath? He isn't out to get revenge on humanity or Batman. And he's not "acting out" as much.

And thus implying that because the Joker has killed for material pleasures at "one point" he is not insane.

Tell me, what "material pleasure" was the Joker going to acquire through proving his point in TKJ? Also, as for your "the most evil people in history" quarm; do you know of a certain 'Jack The Ripper'? That guy killed over one-hundred people, and for what? For nothing. He was just insane. He was mentally deranged.

Are you saying that mass-murderers who kill for absolutely nothing only for their own personal pleasure is not irrational, immoderate or senseless?

His evil stemmed from his own insanity. My god that's a shallow approach to potential characterization

And here we go again with the "shallow characterization" garbage you usually come up with. The Joker's evil does stem from his own insanity. That's exactly the message that Alan Moore conveys in TKJ. The Joker falls into the chemicals, becomes insane, and through that becomes vengeful, which guides him to a dark place.

Call it shallow all you like, but the book doesn't convey any other message, my friend.

makes The Joker no more or less than the average "mad scientist" archetype, only now he has a gimmick. Not interested in that since I was about 8, and The Joker stopped being "just another villain".

I take it you totally hated Emperor Palpatine, then? Or Darth Vader?

Two of the greatest villains to ever grace cinema, I might add. I sense that you are, yet again, going to start displaying a complete lack of understanding of agricultural fables.

Well, my friend, you certainly wouldn't be normal, but you simply cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that because your actions were such, that you were insane.

Well, I would be insane, because I would have developed a mental derangement. I would start to act completely irrational and immoderate. The dictionary disagrees with you.

Society might see fit to label you insane because they are uncomfortable with the extent of your deviance, but I don't think you could prove you were without a careful study of your motivations, actual mental faculties, etc.

Christ, I'm starting to come to the illusion that you don't even know what insane means. What does it mean, to you? If the Joker isn't insane, then are you implying that he is sane?

A sane man is someone who isn't suffering from any kind of mental derangement. The Joker is suffering from a mental derangement, because he feels that he needs to kill in order to be satisfied. That, in of itself, shows a complete lack of mental stability and common sense.

He is insane. According to Batman he is, anyway...and Alan Moore...

A lot of words are synonyms for insane. A lot of them are buzzwords and labels. They don't all hold water when applied to a person's overall mental state.

And I have provided three dictionary websites that all use the synyonyms I have used to define the word "insane".

May the dodging begin.

This is called apathy and a lack of self-preservation. It is not, in itself, a sign of insanity.

I suggest you pay a little visit to the dictionary.

2.lacking mental perception, appreciation, or comprehension.
3.stupid or foolish, as persons or actions.

The Joker's actions in "The Long Halloween" show a complete lack of perception, because despite the fact that he could have died in that moment, he didn't care, due to his lack of sensablity. That's why Batman called him "insane". Oh, and the fact that Joker vowed to kill everyone in the entire freakin' city.

But the Joker's not insane, right? He never shows complete irrational and immoderation towards the well-being of others, does he?

Already explained this. He's simply immune to mood altering substances.

And, I asked if your reasoning was proof, as in "DC canon".

Remember that?

This is called apathy. It is not, in itself, a sign of insanity.

Being senseless shows a complete lack of perception. While the Joker should be fighting for his life in TLH, he is mocking the situation. Again, this is the sign of someone who is senseless to the point where they do not care for their own well-being.

Actually I believe that it is.

Please feel free to provide a link.

Pure insanity based on what?

Yeah, and the act of killing everyone within an entire city is the act of a sane person, right?

Based on what.

Based on the fact that the Joker's actions are those of an "insane" person, according to the dictionary. Thus, the thinking behind those actions was "insane", too.

Pretty simple, really.

You just said "chose to let go". He chooses to be what he became. This is my point.

Your point is that the Joker is not insane, though. When the Joker saw himself in the reflection, he didn't try to fight the insanity. He let it consume him.

Go figure.

Elaborate, please.

Well, perhaps you should explain what you mean by saying that the Joker is "in control". His actions are not that of a man who is control of their own sanity.

The Joker, himself, insists that he lost control...

This has to do with rationality. Not whether or not The Joker is actually insane. The Joker doesn't want help. Tell me, is an alchoholic who doesn't want help insane? A sex addict who doesn't want help? A drug addict? No. They are merely irrational and obsessed with their particular joy in life.

And how many people do you know who's "joy in life" is to kill entire city's worth of people?

Smoking and having sex on a regular basis is not the same offense as killing on a regular basis. Wanting to kill people shows a complete lack of perception and rationality -- even moreso than drinking alcohol, having sex or taking drugs. Why? Because the Joker's actions were bringing harm to others.

A view he realizes is out of touch with most people. A view he chooses to embrace. Willingly.

Which makes him all the more insane that he wants to be the kind of person that he is. He is suffering from mental derangement. He is insane.

Where is that written?

Well, it isn't the action of a "sane" person, now is it? It isn't the act of someone who is "sound of mind", now is it? It is the act of an "insane" person. Check the dictionary, or try to contact Alan Moore.

I don't personally know any. That doesn't mean it's not possible for such a person to exist.

Eh? If you murder THOUSANDS of people, then you are not rational, because you would be performing the worst criminal offense possible on a regular basis.

Such a hideous argument.

"Beyond" insanity.

Yes, which proves my point.

Not only is the Joker insane, but he is beyond insanity. He is something else entirely. And his actions prove that.

Because of what one book says?

But it's not just "one book". All the Joker's actions, in almost every single story, are that of a totally irrational, immoderate and senseless person. He is highly insane. And it's not like TKJ isn't used to define the character, now, is it?

There is a difference between "Can't stop" and "Doesn't want to stop because of the perceived benefits".

Now you're just pulling these definitions out of your ass. The Joker "can't stop" because that is what he is. This is what he feels he needs, and that shows a complete lack of mental health. It's basically due to his insanity.

It makes him something we call evil, yes. I would call it something more like extremely apathetic and narcissistic with a particular worldview.

And that evil is drawn from his insanity! What you aren't grasping here I do not know. Hell, even Infinity9999x has accepted that the Joker is presented as someone who is insane in TKJ...

And when did The Joker ever "leave" reality?

In a metaphorical sense, of coarse he lost grips with the realms of reality, because he became totally irrational. The guy become morally absolute...

Maybe. I doubt it.

I doubt it, too, but the point still remains that the Joker was simply driven insane, just as Gordon was almost driven insane.

Hardly. Harvey Dent underwent a lifetime of abuse and disappointment in the system he fought for, repressed a large portion of his issues, and then became insane to the point where he could not control himself too much when chemicals ate through part of his brain.

Sounds like a description for the Joker. Underwent a lifetime of stress and difficulty and dissapointment, but was eventually driven insane after the accident.

 

[Anita18]

Well I guess the question is: does the Joker understand the difference between right and wrong and purposely does wrong, or does he just not care either way?

Since he's a force of sheer anarchy and chaos, I vote for "not giving a crap." But it definitely depends on who's writing, I think.

 

[Sidepocket]

Well one of the reasons I like this Anarchy version of the Joker is that its going to raise two questions:

1) Do people obey the law because they feel its right, or do they obey it because they are afraid of the consequences of breaking it?

2) Does justice work? Is "Eye for an Eye" the way to go, or is it just the normal idealistic ********?

 

[ronny]

Well I guess the question is: does the Joker understand the difference between right and wrong and purposely does wrong?

I think he does know the difference but finds fulfilment in crime and so continues to do it. The funny thing is that if he wanted to he could stop. Dark Knight Returns, when Batman retires The Joker also stops his actions. Another comic, The Joker led a normal life, got plastic surgery and became a regular guy. He could stop doing it all any time he wanted, I would say that something is driving him but I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

 

[regwec]

I'm afraid I can't read all of this right now, and may be repeating what's been said before, but does anyone else recall the dialogue between Jason Todd and The Joker at the finale of "Under the Hood"?

The upshot was that The Joker wore feigned insanity as a sort of figleaf over his sadistic impulses.

I don't really know if I agree with that, but I think it's fair to say that their is room for debate over his mental state. Legally, he definately isn't insane, as we agreed, but it's very difficult to get a handle on his mind itself, especially given that he "reinvents himself every day".

I do think that his primary motivation is a kind of narcisistic disorder- from the dapper clothes, to the moniker "clown prince", to the speech in the third person, to the proliferation of his own image, to the desire to murder anyone who offs Batman in his place; it all adds up. He might be mad as well, but he has a very firm grip on reality, and he does bad things especially because he knows they are bad things, not because he lacks a moral compass.

If there is a clear-cut psychopath amongst Batman's rogues it is Mr Zsasz: he kills because he enjoys the sensation, and the moral consequences are irrelevant to him. Dent, meanwhile, suffers from a kind of comic book version of MPD, and Jervis Tetch is completely obsessive and delusional. If you accept the analysis that Nigma is psychologically obliged to leave clues around (an analysis I hate), then he could obviously be considered insane.

If you think about it, there isn't really anything especially mad about The Joker: his whacky-clown persona just seems to be a visual cue for madness.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

Some terrorists take bombs or planes and kill hundreds of people. Are those guys insane?

 

[ronny]

Some terrorists take bombs or planes and kill hundreds of people. Are those guys insane?

No. But they are scum.

If you accept the analysis that Nigma is psychologically obliged to leave clues around (an analysis I hate).

Why do you hate that? It's something quite important to the character.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

No. But they are scum.

Yep. Like the Joker. If he were insane he would actually be a very poor person you should feel sorry for.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Alright, I have to chip in my two cents on this.

Here's the definition of "insanity" from Black's Law Dictionary:

insanity, n., Any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. - Insanity is a legal, not a medical standard. -- Also termed legal insanity; lunacy.
​

In my favorite depictions the Joker clearly knows exactly what he's doing, and what end result he wants, when he commits his crimes. Shooting Barabra and killing Essen were both done with the understanding that the act would affect Jim Gordon, etc.

(Aside: I also think that his appearance helps his cause when he raises the insanity defense, because it erases a connection with society that he would normally have, but that's a whole different argument that's already been had somewhere in this thread.)

Anyway, if we look at insanity as a purely legal term, it's tough to argue that the Joker lacks capacity to understand his actions. Is the Joker twisted or perverse? Yeah, but that doesn't mean he's insane.

But, as somebody else said, it's all a matter of who's writing him, too.

One last point on the the whole "Beyond Insanity" marketing slogan: "Beyond insanity" doesn't mean insanity, it means something in addition to, or further than insanity. (i.e. Batman Beyond wasn't Batman).

 

[cjblair]

"27. Insanity
A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission on
account of unsoundness of mind if at the time of doing the act or
making the omission he is in such a state of mental impairment
as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing, or
of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he
ought not to do the act or make the omission.

A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an
act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but
who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the foregoing
provisions of this section, is criminally responsible for the act or
omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been
such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist."

The Joker knows exactly what he's doing..."it's all part of the plan."

 

[Mr. Superhero]

insane Synonyms

insane

modif.
Derangedcrazy, crazed, mad, wild, raging, frenzied, lunatic, schizophrenic, psychotic, psychopathic, psychoneurotic, paranoid, non compos mentis (Latin), maniacal, raving, demented, rabid, berserk, unbalanced, unhinged, act of one's mind, out of one's head, moonstruck, unsettled, mentally unsound, mentally diseased, sick, suffering from hallucinations, bereft of reason, daft, deluded, possessed, stark mad, having a devil, obsessed, disordered, touched, addlebrained, addlepated, addleheaded, nutty*, loony*, nuts*, schizo*, shizzy*, tetched*, balmy*, screwy*, loco*, off the wall*, wacko*, cuckoo*, bughouse*, crazy as a coot*, mad as a March hare*, gone*, derailed*, half-cocked*, haywire*, bats*, batty*, off the beam*, having bats in the belfry*, round the bend*, bonkers*, unglued*, nutty as a fruitcake*, off one's nut*, off one's rocker*, out of one's gourd*, dotty*, pixilated*, cracked*, having a few buttons missing*, one can short of a six-pack*, frothing at the mouth*, bananas*, not playing with a full deck*, out to lunch*, not all there*, wigged out*, off the deep end*;

The ones highlighted can be used to describe the Joker, and you people are going to sit there, with your selective definitions, and tell me that the Joker isn't insane?

Give me a break.

 

[Keyser Soze]

The ones highlighted can be used to describe the Joker, and you people are going to sit there, with your selective definitions, and tell me that the Joker isn't insane?

Give me a break.

Only, while the people who claim he isn't insane are actually giving examples and comparisons to explain their viewpoint, you are literally just saying here that "he's insane because he's crazy". Looking up a bunch of words to define insane isn't going to advance your argument any.

You continually fail to address such points as:

1. Should real-life mass murderers and cold-blooded killers be able to plea insanity and escape punishment?
2. Is The Joker in control of his own actions? Does he know the difference between right and wrong?
3. The difference between a psychological disorder (which The Joker clearly has, most killers have something wired up wrong in their heads to do what they do), and the legal definition of "insane", which is the grounds this argument is actually based on

 

[itsthebatman]

I'm afraid I can't read all of this right now, and may be repeating what's been said before, but does anyone else recall the dialogue between Jason Todd and The Joker at the finale of "Under the Hood"?

The upshot was that The Joker wore feigned insanity as a sort of figleaf over his sadistic impulses.

I don't really know if I agree with that, but I think it's fair to say that their is room for debate over his mental state. Legally, he definately isn't insane, as we agreed, but it's very difficult to get a handle on his mind itself, especially given that he "reinvents himself every day".

*raises hand*
I made the same point yesterday, only it got lost in the general Guard/Superhero/Infinity debate.

I do think that his primary motivation is a kind of narcisistic disorder- from the dapper clothes, to the moniker "clown prince", to the speech in the third person, to the proliferation of his own image, to the desire to murder anyone who offs Batman in his place; it all adds up. He might be mad as well, but he has a very firm grip on reality, and he does bad things especially because he knows they are bad things, not because he lacks a moral compass.

If there is a clear-cut psychopath amongst Batman's rogues it is Mr Zsasz: he kills because he enjoys the sensation, and the moral consequences are irrelevant to him. Dent, meanwhile, suffers from a kind of comic book version of MPD, and Jervis Tetch is completely obsessive and delusional. If you accept the analysis that Nigma is psychologically obliged to leave clues around (an analysis I hate), then he could obviously be considered insane.

If you think about it, there isn't really anything especially mad about The Joker: his whacky-clown persona just seems to be a visual cue for madness.

I think he's crazy in the coconut, he needs a frontier psychiatrist.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Okay, after thinking about it a bit I think the general disagreement comes down to this. Mr. Superhero and I disagree on the terms of insanity.

I disagree that sociopaths are insane by nature. It's a fact that sociopaths, people who enjoy killing, have been committed to prison and the death chamber. A judge and jury did not find them insane. So legally a person who enjoys killing is not always insane.

This is what I mean when I say sometimes the Joker is not portrayed as insane. I mean that, if he were in the real world and tried by a jury, he would be committed to prison and not an Asylum.

That's the point I've been trying to make Mr. Superhero, but it got lost in our huge argument. It's basically what Reg and the others have already said.

That's also what I meant when I said enjoying murder is not insane in the idea that people who enjoy murder are not always declared insane in court and get the death penalty or prison instead of being committed.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

You continually fail to address such points as:

1. Should real-life mass murderers and cold-blooded killers be able to plea insanity and escape punishment?
2. Is The Joker in control of his own actions? Does he know the difference between right and wrong?
3. The difference between a psychological disorder (which The Joker clearly has, most killers have something wired up wrong in their heads to do what they do), and the legal definition of "insane", which is the grounds this argument is actually based on

Okay, after thinking about it a bit I think the general disagreement comes down to this. Mr. Superhero and I disagree on the terms of insanity.

I disagree that sociopaths are insane by nature. It's a fact that sociopaths, people who enjoy killing, have been committed to prison and the death chamber. A judge and jury did not find them insane. So legally a person who enjoys killing is not always insane.

This is what I mean when I say sometimes the Joker is not portrayed as insane. I mean that, if he were in the real world and tried by a jury, he would be committed to prison and not an Asylum.

That's the point I've been trying to make Mr. Superhero, but it got lost in our huge argument. It's basically what Reg and the others have already said.

That's also what I meant when I said enjoying murder is not insane in the idea that people who enjoy murder are not always declared insane in court and get the death penalty or prison instead of being committed.

Good points all round. Meditate on this, I will...

 

[The Guard]

LOL! Did you read the dialogue? He's talking about legalizing Joker fish. Joker fish.

Right, and there's nothing inherently insane about it.

look up the clinical definition of psychopath and then get back to me. the joker is one. im tired of repeating myself.
Of, relating to, or characterized by psychopathy.
K...
Relating to or affected with an antisocial personality disorder that is usually characterized by aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.

Again, what does any of this have to do with actual insanity? A LOT of people fit this bill, they are not all insane.

and the joker was portrayed as a schizophrenic in arkham asylum and more recently in lovers and madmen. im sure i can find at least a few more if i dwell on it.

Which elements of schizophrenia were utilized in these stories?

also look up schizophrenia

Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality. illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.
The Joker has not withdrawn from reality . He does not think illogically. He does not have delusions, as far as I know, just ambition. And I have never seen The Joker hallucinate. The rest of this is just FAR too vague and broad to define The Joker's actions concretely.

and narcissistic personality disorder.

A personality disorder characterized by excessive feelings of self-importance and entitlement, a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy. ...
This describes The Joker...but it does not describe an insane person. Again, a LOT of people have this "disorder", and they're not all insane.

also (if you can find it) look up the criteria for the diagonosis of these specific psychopathologies. and then explain how the joker, at one time or another, does not qualify.

Give me specific examples where he does and I will show you why I think that does not qualify.

and lastly, if "insane" is too much of a buzzword in the common usage by what standard are you judging the joker's mental state?
The standard that doctors and lawyers use to determine whether someone is crazy or not. The only standard that doesn't consist of broad buzz words, and therefore the only definition of insanity that carries any actual weight or psychological relevance in the context of a "criminal mind". The legal definition of insanity.

because you seem to be basing this of some sort of personal definition/standard and not rational dissemination with any kind of basis in fact or psychological criteria. meaning you are basing your argument on some sort of personal/emotional opinion of the facts and not the facts themselves.

To a point, but mainly because I prefer a certain definition/approach to the issue of "insanity". You're debating with someone who has studied psychology, sociology, and people in general since he was a young child. I know exactly where my beliefs come from in regard to society's accepted definitions. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Guard seems to be using the legal definition--which is that one is not "insane" unless one A) cannot distinguish between right and wrong, or B) cannot control his or her own actions.

Yes. And this is the only logical definition to be utilized in context. The other definitions are too broad and subjective comparatively.

Back in high school my law professor described it as such: if a man believes God speaks to him and orders him to kill, he is not legally insane. He has the capacity to judge right and wrong, and that his judgments are different from ours does not qualify him as insane. Only when he cannot make the distinction is he insane.

The Joker both understands the difference between right and wrong and is in control of his actions. Legally, he is not insane. The reason Guard is using the legal definition, I suspect, is because all alternatives are vague and non-specific. "Insanity" has lost most of it's meaning in our vernacular and has degenerated into a blanket term describing all manner or mental irregularities. For the sake of clarity, it makes sense to use the legal definition. If you are only interested in a generalized, unspecific and non-descript label for the Joker, then yes, he is "insane." In a clearer, specific, technical description, though, he is probably not.

Exactly. One definition is more concrete, specific and measurable. One isn't. See my previous "She's going out with him! She's insane!" example for why I think the other definitions are too vague.

You can argue about how the Joker is "mentally sound", but his actions suggest otherwise, and that is the only way to define a person.

Here's the thing. Define "mentally sound".

Actions speaks louder than words.

I'm not sure this even applies. Actions alone do not point to the presence of insanity.

And it just so happens that most of Joker's actions can be defined by synonyms for "insane".

Defined vaguely and broadly, and broadly applied to almost ANYONE at any given time, really.

Heh -- even Batman says that Joker is "insane" in "The Long Halloween"...

Maybe he thinks he is. That doesn't mean that he conclusively is. I've always felt Batman has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to The Joker. It's one of my favorite parts about their interactions.

If the Joker's actions are that of an "insane" man, factually speaking -- then why do you say that he is not insane? The facts are against you.

-Because he is capable of rational and logical thought processes, as he has proven time and time again.
-Because he is in complete control of his actions.
-Because he is completely aware of just how far from "normal" he is, and how deviant his actions are.
-Because as far as we know, he does not suffer delusions or a specific illness that cause him to act as he does, and instead motivates himself to commit his crimes.

I'm sure the dictionary would disagree with you, since performing evil deeds represents irrationality, immoderation and senselessness. The facts are against you.

I don't care what the dictionary says in this case, as the dictionary is merely presenting "insanity" as a cure all synonym for a large number of "extreme" behaviors. "Evil" is relative. So is "irratonality, immoderation and senselessness".

You keep saying that the Joker isn't insane, yet the dictionary, all unofficial sources, and Alan Moore strongly disagree with you.

I care about what insanity means in context. Alan Moore obviously believed The Joker could at least be considered insane. But again, Alan Moore went to great lengths to show that it's simply not that black and white when it comes to The Joker.

And thus implying that because the Joker has killed for material pleasures at "one point" he is not insane.

No, quite the opposite. I'm pointing out that you cannot point to the lack of something or the presence of something as proof of a specific ill in this case. It's too broad a concept.

Tell me, what "material pleasure" was the Joker going to acquire through proving his point in TKJ?

It may not have bee a material gain, but to The Joker, some degree of pleasure, satisfaction, etc, was obviously sought, and gained, at one point or another.

Also, as for your "the most evil people in history" quarm; do you know of a certain 'Jack The Ripper'? That guy killed over one-hundred people, and for what? For nothing. He was just insane. He was mentally deranged.

Speaking as someone who has also studied Ripperology, how do you know? Do you know who Jack The Ripper was and his specific mental state?

Are you saying that mass-murderers who kill for absolutely nothing only for their own personal pleasure is not irrational, immoderate or senseless?

Depends on who is assessing their actions. Again, those things are subjective. I don't being irrational or extremely deviant equals "insane".

And here we go again with the "shallow characterization" garbage you usually come up with. The Joker's evil does stem from his own insanity.

That's shallow to me. That's a "cure-all" explanation for a person's motivations. That's a mad scientist.

That's exactly the message that Alan Moore conveys in TKJ. The Joker falls into the chemicals, becomes insane, and through that becomes vengeful, which guides him to a dark place.

Call it shallow all you like, but the book doesn't convey any other message,
my friend.

I take it you totally hated Emperor Palpatine, then? Or Darth Vader?

No, I love Darth Vader, and Palpatine is all right, but neither of them are particularly complex in terms of their motivations. Palpatine in particular is a very shallow character, at least in the original trilogy. Granted they've both been fleshed out a bit beyond the basics in the Extended Universe.

Two of the greatest villains to ever grace cinema, I might add.

Greatest, but not neccessarily the most complex.

I sense that you are, yet again, going to start displaying a complete lack of understanding of agricultural fables.

A lack of understanding? Because I don't think a relatively simple, straightforward character is particularly complex?

Well, I would be insane, because I would have developed a mental derangement. I would start to act completely irrational and immoderate. The dictionary disagrees with you.

But how would we know you've developed a mental derangement, and aren't just a horrible person who gets his kicks doing such things? You cannot simply look at someone's "actions" and declare them insane.

Christ, I'm starting to come to the illusion that you don't even know what insane means. What does it mean, to you? If the Joker isn't insane, then are you implying that he is sane?

What does insane mean to me? In a nutshell:

Incapable of assessing concepts like right and wrong
Incapable of controlling your behavior
Unaware of the nature of your deviance

A sane man is someone who isn't suffering from any kind of mental derangement.

Define "mental derangement".

The Joker is suffering from a mental derangement, because he feels that he needs to kill in order to be satisfied.

Who says he needs that in order to be satisifed? Maybe he just does it because he enjoys it. How does he handle being in Arkham without killing, then, and still maintain his rosy outlook on life? The man LIKES killing. He doesn't HAVE to kill. That's part of what makes him so terrifying a concept.

That, in of itself, shows a complete lack of mental stability and common sense.

I never said he was completely mentally "stable". Where does he display a lack of common sense? Knowing killing is wrong in a larger society doesn't mean anything, if in context, you enjoy doing something and it brings you pleasure, and "common sense" becomes "I should do what I enjoy".

He is insane. According to Batman he is, anyway...and Alan Moore...

If Batman truly knows he is insane, why does he question it every so often? And I'm sorry, but I don't think Alan Moore believes The Joker is completely insane. I think he very much understands the concept of The Joker using "insanity" to excuse his actions.

 

[The Guard]

And I have provided three dictionary websites that all use the synyonyms I have used to define the word "insane".

May the dodging begin.

suggest you pay a little visit to the dictionary.

I suggest you look up the definition of "vague".

2.lacking mental perception, appreciation, or comprehension.

This can describe any NUMBER of things other than insanity. And you have yet to prove that The Joker LACKS these things.

3.stupid or foolish, as persons or actions.

Again, this can describe any NUMBER of things other than actual insanity. You're sitting here using the "She's going out with him?" use of the word insane to describe actual insanity.

Think about it. If this was a clinical definition of insanity, then based on this, every time someone did something "stupid or foolish", they would BE insane.

Again, this second definition you are throwing at me is just a synonym our society uses to explain behavior they consider absurd. It's like when someone says "Wow, that was ******ed", they don't actually mean a person is mentally ******ed. It's a buzzword.

And the first definition is just vague as hell, and can be broadly applied, even to things that aren't in any way shape or form a form of insanity.

The Joker's actions in "The Long Halloween" show a complete lack of perception, because despite the fact that he could have died in that moment, he didn't care, due to his lack of sensablity.

That's not a lack of perception. He may very well perceive that he could die. He clearly doesn't care, because he values the interaction more than the possible outcomes.

That's why Batman called him "insane".

Right, and Batman is using a synonym to describe the absurdity of The Joker's behavior.

Oh, and the fact that Joker vowed to kill everyone in the entire freakin' city.

How does that by itself make him insane again?

But the Joker's not insane, right? He never shows complete irrational and immoderation towards the well-being of others, does he?

You keep assuming it is because of INSANITY when it may well just be extreme apathy and a sheer dislike of humanity.

And, I asked if your reasoning was proof, as in "DC canon".

Remember that?

Yes. And I said "Actually, I believe it is". And I'm pretty sure it is. I also think Harley Quinn has become immune to many toxins for the same reasons.

The Joker is immune to his own venom as well as various similar toxins

http://www.comicvine.com/joker/1702/

Being senseless shows a complete lack of perception.

Elaborate.

While the Joker should be fighting for his life in TLH, he is mocking the situation. Again, this is the sign of someone who is senseless to the point where they do not care for their own well-being.

You're using synonyms again in an attempt to prove your point.

Deficient in sense; foolish or stupid.

Again, being foolish or stupid does not make one insane.

Please feel free to provide a link.

Sure.

http://www.comicvine.com/joker/1702/

Yeah, and the act of killing everyone within an entire city is the act of a sane person, right?

The act itself has no inherent bearing on their sanity.

Based on the fact that the Joker's actions are those of an "insane" person, according to the dictionary. Thus, the thinking behind those actions was "insane", too.

Based on your interpretation of the dictionary's very broad and vague synonym of a definition, which is hardly, in context, exhaustive.

Pretty simple, really.

Your point is that the Joker is not insane, though. When the Joker saw himself in the reflection, he didn't try to fight the insanity. He let it consume him.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that he embraced a particular part of himself and used his insanity as an excuse to commit evil deeds.

Well, perhaps you should explain what you mean by saying that the Joker is "in control". His actions are not that of a man who is control of their own sanity.

I mean he is in control. He does not "have" to kill, and is capable of logical and rational thought. He could probably stop killing if he wanted to.

His actions show he's not in control of his own sanity? How so?

The Joker, himself, insists that he lost control...

So?

Pedophiles claim they cant stop, either. Are they insane?

And how many people do you know who's "joy in life" is to kill entire city's worth of people?

You're asking me how many people are the villain in a comic book mythology? None.

Smoking and having sex on a regular basis is not the same offense as killing on a regular basis. Wanting to kill people shows a complete lack of perception and rationality -- even moreso than drinking alcohol, having sex or taking drugs.

Why does it show a lack of perception of rationality? It shows that this person doesn't care about society's laws and values, but there's no inherent lack of perception or rationality there that I can see. Can you elaborate?

Why? Because the Joker's actions were bringing harm to others.

So because his actions harm others, he must be insane? What about, say...the average criminal? Their actions harm others. Are they insane?

Well, it isn't the action of a "sane" person, now is it?

Again. An action itself is not inherently sane or insane, except maybe in the "buzzword" sense of the word.

It isn't the act of someone who is "sound of mind", now is it?

That depends.

Eh? If you murder THOUSANDS of people, then you are not rational, because you would be performing the worst criminal offense possible on a regular basis.

How does an ACT itself automatically make you irrational? Again, you seem to think "evil" equals "crazy". That simply isn't the case.

Not only is the Joker insane, but he is beyond insanity. He is something else entirely. And his actions prove that.

"Beyond insanity" would tend to mean "Not insanity", wouldn't it?

But it's not just "one book". All the Joker's actions, in almost every single story, are that of a totally irrational, immoderate and senseless person.

Right, but these things by themselves do not insanity make.

Now you're just pulling these definitions out of your ass. The Joker "can't stop" because that is what he is. This is what he feels he needs, and that shows a complete lack of mental health. It's basically due to his insanity.

There is a difference between being mentally unhealthy and insane.

In a metaphorical sense, of coarse he lost grips with the realms of reality, because he became totally irrational.

Wait...in a metaphorical sense? What about in a real sense? How is he totally irrational? Specific examples.

I don't really know if I agree with that, but I think it's fair to say that their is room for debate over his mental state.

At the very least.

If you think about it, there isn't really anything especially mad about The Joker: his whacky-clown persona just seems to be a visual cue for madness.

Exactly.

Here's the definition of "insanity" from Black's Law Dictionary:
insanity, n., Any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. - Insanity is a legal, not a medical standard. -- Also termed legal insanity; lunacy.
In my favorite depictions the Joker clearly knows exactly what he's doing, and what end result he wants, when he commits his crimes. Shooting Barabra and killing Essen were both done with the understanding that the act would affect Jim Gordon, etc.

(Aside: I also think that his appearance helps his cause when he raises the insanity defense, because it erases a connection with society that he would normally have, but that's a whole different argument that's already been had somewhere in this thread.)

Anyway, if we look at insanity as a purely legal term, it's tough to argue that the Joker lacks capacity to understand his actions. Is the Joker twisted or perverse? Yeah, but that doesn't mean he's insane.

There we go.

But, as somebody else said, it's all a matter of who's writing him, too.

To a point, but even when he's supposed to be "bat**** crazy" you can view him as perfectly sane in many ways.

27. Insanity
A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission on
account of unsoundness of mind if at the time of doing the act or
making the omission he is in such a state of mental impairment
as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing, or
of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he
ought not to do the act or make the omission.

A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an
act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but
who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the foregoing
provisions of this section, is criminally responsible for the act or
omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been
such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist."

The Joker knows exactly what he's doing..."it's all part of the plan."[/quote]

There we go.

The ones highlighted can be used to describe the Joker, and you people are going to sit there, with your selective definitions, and tell me that the Joker isn't insane?

The ones highlighted can be used to describe a lot of people. It doesn't neccessarily prove insanity.

 

[Riven]

All I have to say is that the usage of the Quote feature in this thread is...

wait for it...

insane!