Why he took his life is another matter and a matter of some conjecture. The fact remains he has every right to take that which is his:his own life.

Until someone shows me that Daniel considered himself mentally ill, I refuse to use that term and I consider it derogatory.

Shull’s true motives will never be known. He may or may not have been a true animal advocate and he may not have intended to sacrifice himself. But I don’t think it’s fair to jump to the conclusion that he had a severe mental illness, particularly because mental illness is so often defined merely as acting differently than the majority, which is exactly what virtually all protest is – acting differently.

I certainly don’t mean to idolize him or make suicide look like something heroic. I don’t believe suicide is ever a good option. But I have enough respect for other people that I’m unwilling to discount the potential meaning that he intended through his action. I’m unwilling to sweep his death under the rug and simply call him “ill.”

“but selfish acts like Mr. Shaull’s help us in absolutely no way.”

I’m wondering what gives you the right to call him selfish? We don’t know what kind of life he had or why he did this. To call someone who you somehow have been able to diagnose as having “severe mental illness” a selfish person is pretty low. I like how you dive right into chocolate soy milk after insulting a person who was probably suffering intensely in one way or another….

Additionally, to bash animal rights and eco activists for not doing enough for humans is short sighted. Human suffering is often directly linked to our animal and environmental abuses. It is all connected.