swphreak Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 We're just going around in circles, and I believe this Breton is doing this for kicks. Our beliefs stand, and nothing we say or do will change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak We're just going around in circles, and I believe this Breton is doing this for kicks. Our beliefs stand, and nothing we say or do will change it. the pretty kitty is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The man was pretty sane when he told the police a couple of years ago that he wasn't going to hurt the girl he "attempted to kindnap!" Sure And he certainly knew how to keep his mouth shut and wouldn't help police find her when he knew she was dead. He was STUPID enough not to know there was a video camera there. Yes, people like this should go to jail, people like this should have their dicks cut off. Why - because they have no useful purpose for it. Maybe that makes me a bad person, to not be forgiving of his actions, but I guess its just like what leXX said, its human instinct. Why should this guy get to have a life, when he took someone elses away from them, not to mention the horrible hell they went through before he took it away. Its kinda like when you were bad as a child, you learned there were consequences. Aparently he's just going to learn that a little later in his life. I hope he is convicted and this world is rid of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak We're just going around in circles.... Our beliefs stand, and nothing we say or do will change it. Thats one thing that is resoundingly true. Personally - I think this thread should be closed, ppl are just getting upset, and the topic in question is one that society at large hasnt been able to solve, let alone a pack of SWfans/swampies like us...... I say let it go, and let us mourn for Charlie *together* MTFBWYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leXX Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Unless people start flaming each other, there is no reason to close this thread. People are free to express their opinions for as long as they want. However, I agree we are going around in circles. I've said my piece and I won't be adding anything more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Now, what's your definition of normal. Getting a C on a grade is NORMAL. I said getting below C, and I never said this was a mental illness, I said it was a solvable problem. I think everyone can agree that getting below average at school is a problem, and that it is possible to solve. Lucasforums a disorder? *snickers* It doesn't seem to be an impairment to any of those things listed above. What dictionary are you getting the definition of mental disorder from? *sigh* I defined a "mental disorder" by "mentality that is ouside of normal". It's not normal to respond to a topic about human psyche on a forum, thus this is not normal, and thus a disorder. If you are going to attack something, attack the definition, beucase my statement is undebatable if my definition is true. If there's no choice, then there's no opinions, so your opinion is non-existant and therefore irrelevant. It is really that hard to imagine? If it is, try actually reading my arguments. Yes you are. All they have to do is fake being cured. If tested properly, faking will be very difficult, close to impossible. Which it should be. I'm afraid that you have a mental disorder, or multiple mental disorders. You're wasting the valuble time of your on Lucasforums, thats a mental disorder. Unless I'm interpreting your version of a mental disorder incorrectly as the dictionary seems to have done... ...your point? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!?!?! IF THE ATTEMPT FAILS THEN WHERE DOES THE RAPIST GO??????? TO PRISON WHERE YOU SAID HE SHOULDN'T GO IN THE FIRST PLACE???? OR BACK OUT ONTO THE STREETS? *takes deep breath* Your plan is FLAWED. You say put them in institutions, but if it doesn't work, put 'em back on the streets because the death penalty is used only for revenge. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?!?! What a joke. Alright, firstly, cut the caps. There's nothing to be upset about, and yelling in a post it horribly unproper. Secondly, you have misunderstood me completely. Again, this would not have happened if you had read through my arguments. As I've said plenty of times already, they will not be released until cured, so if the attempt fails, it will be attempted again and again until cured or died of old age. Of course, the first is the most preferable, and will also be the most common by large. So the billions upon billions of people who have fought in wars since the beginning of time were all out of their mind? In a way, yes. "All mental disorders can be treated in one way or another, and if the attempt fails, then we've lost nothing." Stop contradicting yourself. The attempt can fail due to many reasons, such as failure in treatment, incompetance amongst the psychiatrists, and the criminal dying before the treatment is finished. It is, however, always possible. Once again, unless I'm mistaken, then you're contradicting yourself by saying that things such as people who get belows C's in school have a bad mentality and therefore have a mental illness, even though they aren't breaking the law, like you're saying people with mental disabilities always do in this sentence. What you believed I said: "People with mental disabilities always break the law." What I said: "People who break the law always have a mental disfunction, as they are incapable of functioning in society." Once again, an error created by not reading my arguments properly. Originally posted by Jed You may not bring that little girl back, but you'll certainly prevent the guy from doing it again. And it's a lot more effective than trying to cure the guy, and then letting him out on the streets to do the same crime to someone else. This person would not be let free until cured. Yep, they'll be real sad to see a poor, innocent rapist and murderer get wiped off the face of this earth. Just as I've said a horrible amount of times already, illness is not a reason for guilt. If a person has broken his leg, you may very well say that he is guilty of not painting the house, but as it wasn't his fault in the first place that he wasn't able to paint the house, I wouldn't call him guilty of not painting it. The fact of the matter is, even if we could cure these people, do you realize how much it would cost the government? A lot more than putting them in prison. Why should taxpayers pay for the "correction" of murderers, serial killers, and rapists, when the correction may not even work, while the American public is paying for the "correction" and their own health expenses! Let's make the national debt soar even further without effectively solving the problem! Firstly, I can't believe we're talking about expenses when it's about saving lives. Secondly, two years in a clinic will cost way less than forty years in prison. Most criminals wouldn't take long to cure, and you wouldn't have them going in and out of prison all the time. Thirdly, as the amount of crimes will decline (most serious crimes are committed by people who have already been in prison, and prison only make them more criminal) so will the expenses. Crimes cost society a lot. The fact is that we don't live in a perfect world. We solve things the most effective way so that people are safe - and yes, I know this is a bad choice, but it is a lot safer to kill these people. And no more of this innocent talk - these people are far from that. Killing innocents to make sure that they don't kill innocents...in that case, we might as well kill off half the world's population, as there is a chance someone of this half will kill a person of the other half. And I've already commented the innocent thing. So let's agree to disagree. Your opinion won't change, and neither will mine. That is something I can't do. Everyone's opinion can be changed, and everyone should let their opinions be changed if opposed with better arguments that their own. It's a matter of opinion whose arguments is the best, of course, but unjustified stubborness about one's opinions is something I strongly dislike. If the attempt fails, we lose more lives. That's not nothing. If the attempt fails, we make another attempt. No uncured criminal should be let free in society. Originally posted by InsaneSith 85% of rapists, usually go back to their degenerative ways. ...something which is evidence that today's prison system does not serve the purpose it should. Originally posted by InsaneSith I dont think we should kill this guy, but rather put him in isolation, then send him to every shower, let him get what he gave. then we pretty much starve him. Poor salt in his wounds. Once again, this opinion is based only on the thought of revenge. Once again, I will have to say: Two wrongs does not make one right. Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Breton did you know that people such as Issac Newton and Galileo were considered criminals in their day, yet they were not mentally ill. (I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.) They were incapable of following the laws of the society at that time, which would be a mental disorder. ]Originally posted by Agen_Terminator Ok, I haven't read all of this. I think this is quite simple - Maybe 1-5% of criminals have a mental disorder, doing something bad is usually down to choice, we all have free will, I've done some crap things, I am not going to go and say it's because of my mental health . Firstly, incapability of following a society's laws and rules when you are physically capable of doing so, is a mental disorder in itself. Another way of saying it is that to be a criminal is a mental disorder in itself, though that sentence does not explain the argument very well. I'm sorry but that's pure BS. I can control what's happening with a lot of things, I could type sdogjsd;ls, punch the wall, smash the window, kill myself. I chosoe that. We get impressions of everything, of course if you;re mentally ill it's not right but your choices and what you take from those choices made define your personality etc. It is crazy to suggest choice doesn't exist (or as we know it). If you smash a fly on the wall, then this would be a choice, right? Not really, actually. Firstly, the prime reason for why you smashed that fly was because the fly was there. If the fly hadn't been there, you wouldn't have smashed it. Now, you have absolutly no control over the fly, so you can't choose if the fly would be there or not, thus you weren't able to choose whether or not you would smash a fly. Further on, you will discover that there was loads of other reasons for why you smashed that fly. Such as: It made noise. If it hadn't made noise, you wouldn't have bothered smashing it. Yet, you can't choose whether or not the fly would make noise. Yet another evidence that you smashing that fly was not your own choice. Next one: The noise annoyed you. If the noise hadn't annoyed you, you wouldn't have bothered. Yet, how could you choose what would annoy you and what would not? Another one, one of the prime reasons you smashed it: You were there. Now, you might say "It was my choice that I was there!", but if you look at the reasons for why you were there at that specific time, you'll see that it isn't true. Such as, you quit school early that day. You didn't choose your school schedule, so that's obvious. And others: Why were you inside? Well, perhaps it was raining, and that's why you were inside. You don't choose whether or not it rains. And perhaps it happened while you were sitting in your living room. Why were you sitting? Perhaps your legs ached. Yet another thing you can't choose. And why didn't you let the fly out instead of smashing it? Perhaps you were angry at it for annoying you. You can't choose whether or not to be angry either. One does not choose one's mentality. And so you can go on and on and on. There's close to an infinite amount of reasons for why you smashed this fly, and close to and infinite amount of reasons for why each of these infinite reasons were existant. The only thing all these reasons have in common is that you have absolutly no control over any of them. Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak We're just going around in circles, and I believe this Breton is doing this for kicks. Then you believe wrong. I would like nothing more than to make people understand what I am trying to make them understand. But it does bother me that people seem so stubborn about their beliefs that they are closed to all other points of view. I would gladly change my opinion if people would come with arguments that I believe are stronger than my own, but right now I feel that I can respond to all the relevant counter-arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Breton I would like nothing more than to make people understand what I am trying to make them understand. .....But it does bother me that people seem so stubborn about their beliefs that they are closed to all other points of view. ....I would gladly change my opinion if people would come with arguments that I believe are stronger than my own, but right now I feel that I can respond to all the relevant counter-arguments. Breton you have my deepest respect for your committment to the integrity of the discussion. Indeed, in circumstances such as these, many will find it difficult to separate reason from emotion ; in fact, in many it may be quite impossible(and perhaps with some justification?) However, my earlier point about society at large adopting a closed mindset as a dangerous thing, still stands. I also still stand by my point about America's attitudes towards violence, plz refer to Mike Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" for a better explanation than I can give.... Certainly, if I was you, I would just let things be. Many seem intent to knock you arguments down, without actually having argued the point themselves, but rather presenting a series of judgmental statements from their perspective.... Its a really hard thing to talk about.... Whatever you decide, I am sure you will maintain your integrity to the debate, and to Charlie's memory, which in *no* way have you sulllied... Feel free to PM me, Its really nice to come across a reflective and analytical mind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PerfectAgent_ Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Breton I said getting below C, and I never said this was a mental illness, I said it was a solvable problem. I think everyone can agree that getting below average at school is a problem, and that it is possible to solve. But that is much different from a rapist and murderer. *sigh* I defined a "mental disorder" by "mentality that is ouside of normal". It's not normal to respond to a topic about human psyche on a forum, thus this is not normal, and thus a disorder. If you are going to attack something, attack the definition, beucase my statement is undebatable if my definition is true. People have different mentalities. So since my mentality is different from yours, I must say that you have a mental disorder, and vice versa. If tested properly, faking will be very difficult, close to impossible. Which it should be. To cure what? Secondly, you have misunderstood me completely. Again, this would not have happened if you had read through my arguments. As I've said plenty of times already, they will not be released until cured, so if the attempt fails, it will be attempted again and again until cured or died of old age. Of course, the first is the most preferable, and will also be the most common by large. But there is nothing to cure! The attempt can fail due to many reasons, such as failure in treatment, incompetance amongst the psychiatrists, and the criminal dying before the treatment is finished. It is, however, always possible. But if the psychiatrists insist there is a mental disorder, yet there is none, then the "treatment" will never finish. What you believed I said: "People with mental disabilities always break the law." What I said: "People who break the law always have a mental disfunction, as they are incapable of functioning in society." They are capable of functioning in society, they just decide not to. This person would not be let free until cured. Cured from what? Just as I've said a horrible amount of times already, illness is not a reason for guilt. If a person has broken his leg, you may very well say that he is guilty of not painting the house, but as it wasn't his fault in the first place that he wasn't able to paint the house, I wouldn't call him guilty of not painting it. But if the person's leg is not broken, then they can be accused of not painting the house. Firstly, I can't believe we're talking about expenses when it's about saving lives. Secondly, two years in a clinic will cost way less than forty years in prison. Most criminals wouldn't take long to cure, and you wouldn't have them going in and out of prison all the time. Again, what if there is nothing to cure? Thirdly, as the amount of crimes will decline (most serious crimes are committed by people who have already been in prison, and prison only make them more criminal) so will the expenses. Crimes cost society a lot. Decline? The person just needs to fake "being cured" to get out. Killing innocents to make sure that they don't kill innocents...in that case, we might as well kill off half the world's population, as there is a chance someone of this half will kill a person of the other half. How is someone who raped and murdered someone innocent? We're not predicting if they might kill someone, but people who had done it. If the attempt fails, we make another attempt. No uncured criminal should be let free in society.[/quote But how can they be cured from something they don't have? Once again, this opinion is based only on the thought of revenge. Once again, I will have to say: Two wrongs does not make one right. But it keeps him from doing it again. They were incapable of following the laws of the society at that time, which would be a mental disorder. They were capable, they just didn't choose to. Firstly, incapability of following a society's laws and rules when you are physically capable of doing so, is a mental disorder in itself. Another way of saying it is that to be a criminal is a mental disorder in itself, though that sentence does not explain the argument very well. They are also mentally capable of doing so. If you smash a fly on the wall, then this would be a choice, right? Not really, actually. You can choose whether or not to smash it. ]Firstly, the prime reason for why you smashed that fly was because the fly was there. If the fly hadn't been there, you wouldn't have smashed it. It would be too far away! Now, you have absolutly no control over the fly, so you can't choose if the fly would be there or not, thus you weren't able to choose whether or not you would smash a fly. I've seen people in the presence of a fly not try to smash it. Further on, you will discover that there was loads of other reasons for why you smashed that fly. Such as: It made noise. If it hadn't made noise, you wouldn't have bothered smashing it. Yet, you can't choose whether or not the fly would make noise. Yet another evidence that you smashing that fly was not your own choice. The noise doesn't bother me, I actually like it a bit. Next one: The noise annoyed you. If the noise hadn't annoyed you, you wouldn't have bothered. Yet, how could you choose what would annoy you and what would not? But I have a choice to smash it or not. Another one, one of the prime reasons you smashed it: You were there. Now, you might say "It was my choice that I was there!", but if you look at the reasons for why you were there at that specific time, you'll see that it isn't true. Such as, you quit school early that day. You didn't choose your school schedule, so that's obvious. Actually, I chose the schedule! And others: Why were you inside? Well, perhaps it was raining, and that's why you were inside. You don't choose whether or not it rains. And perhaps it happened while you were sitting in your living room. Why were you sitting? Perhaps your legs ached. Yet another thing you can't choose. I can be outside when it rains, I just use a rain coat. Sitting? I like to sit! And why didn't you let the fly out instead of smashing it? Perhaps you were angry at it for annoying you. You can't choose whether or not to be angry either. One does not choose one's mentality. I actually smashed a fly on some occasions and let it go on other occasions. And so you can go on and on and on. There's close to an infinite amount of reasons for why you smashed this fly, and close to and infinite amount of reasons for why each of these infinite reasons were existant. The only thing all these reasons have in common is that you have absolutly no control over any of them. Untrue. Given by all the other examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sorry about that Caps on the last post, I fogot to comment on that after my post. Originally posted by Breton *sigh* I defined a "mental disorder" by "mentality that is ouside of normal". It's not normal to respond to a topic about human psyche on a forum, thus this is not normal, and thus a disorder. If you are going to attack something, attack the definition, beucase my statement is undebatable if my definition is true. But your definition is not true. It's your personal idea of what it means to have a mental disorder. Also, who in this world defines what is normal and what's not? I could say that your opinion on this matter is not normal, therefore you have a mental disorder that should be cured. "Normal" is a very broad term, and it's unable to be defined in society for a great many things. So posting in this thread could be very normal indeed, but who's to say what's normal and what's not? Originally posted by Breton Secondly, you have misunderstood me completely. Again, this would not have happened if you had read through my arguments. As I've said plenty of times already, they will not be released until cured, so if the attempt fails, it will be attempted again and again until cured or died of old age. Of course, the first is the most preferable, and will also be the most common by large. But what if there really is nothing wrong with the person? It's a never-ending cycle then. You're attempting to place everything not normal (but then again, who's to say what's normal and what's not?) into a category of a mental disorder. You can't generalize like this, or everyone in the world would be getting "cured" including the doctors themselves. No one would ever be without a mental disorder, and if they were, then they would be PERFECT, which is impossible to achieve, because throughout history it has been said over and over that humans are naturally drawn to evil, therefore making it impossible for a person to be fully "cured." Originally posted by Breton The attempt can fail due to many reasons, such as failure in treatment, incompetance amongst the psychiatrists, and the criminal dying before the treatment is finished. It is, however, always possible. Leading to the doctors needing treatment for incompetance and so on and so forth. Your plan is flawed. Originally posted by Breton What you believed I said: "People with mental disabilities always break the law." What I said: "People who break the law always have a mental disfunction, as they are incapable of functioning in society." Once again, an error created by not reading my arguments properly. Society is what we make it. Society is not a solid object, or a definable one. If this was true, then according to your theory, no one would be able to function in "society." And before you even say that not everyone breaks the law, I'll bet that 99.99999999% of human beings have broken the law in some way or another, leading them to be incapable of functioning in society. Society is what humans make it, it is not a tangable object, making your statement false. Originally posted by Breton This person would not be let free until cured. But since most people have broken the law in some way, including the doctors, according to you, they should also be in a mental institution being cured. So who would be left to cure those who need to be cured? Your theory is flawed. Originally posted by Breton Firstly, I can't believe we're talking about expenses when it's about saving lives. Then don't talk about the expenses of prison, because prison keeps the murderers and rapists off of the streets, keeping people safer. Originally posted by Breton Secondly, two years in a clinic will cost way less than forty years in prison. Most criminals wouldn't take long to cure, and you wouldn't have them going in and out of prison all the time. I highly doubt you know an amazing amount about human psychology, so why are you generalizing all criminals by saying that they are easy to cure? On what proof, what basis do you have to say this, even if they have anything to be cured of at all? Originally posted by Breton Thirdly, as the amount of crimes will decline (most serious crimes are committed by people who have already been in prison, and prison only make them more criminal) so will the expenses. Actually, the most serious crimes are committed by dictators and monarchs who have lived in power all their life, or who havn't been in jail. EX: Hitler, Saddam, every single monarch of Middle Ages and after Europe. I would like to see some proof that all serious crimes are committed by people who have already been in jail. Originally posted by Breton Killing innocents to make sure that they don't kill innocents...in that case, we might as well kill off half the world's population, as there is a chance someone of this half will kill a person of the other half. But your theory isn't based on chance, it's based on "curing" "diseases." Originally posted by Breton That is something I can't do. Everyone's opinion can be changed, and everyone should let their opinions be changed if opposed with better arguments that their own. It's a matter of opinion whose arguments is the best, of course, but unjustified stubborness about one's opinions is something I strongly dislike. How can you say this? Let's say that I'm argueing with someone of a higher education that me, someone who has a larger vocabulary than me, someone who has influence and power in the government or a group, and they are able to present their arguement on why the entire population of Europe should be killed better than my arguement against his. Does his better educational background leading to his better presentation of his arguement mean that I should change my mind about what I know is morally right, and just right in general? Originally posted by Breton If the attempt fails, we make another attempt. No uncured criminal should be let free in society. Well then I should be in an institution because I took cookies from my lunchroom in my school without paying, which is a crime. Oh, and my doctor who's curing me should also be cured because he cheated on his taxes... the cycle never ends in your theory. Originally posted by Breton They were incapable of following the laws of the society at that time, which would be a mental disorder. So genius is now a crime? It is not a mental disorder if I am able to prove a theory wrong involving anything from the cosmos down to this theory that you're presenting. Originally posted by Breton Firstly, incapability of following a society's laws and rules when you are physically capable of doing so, is a mental disorder in itself. Another way of saying it is that to be a criminal is a mental disorder in itself, though that sentence does not explain the argument very well. But those who created the laws in the first place were mental, because they were supporting a democracy that formed when the Pilgrims broke laws of England. Once again, in your theory, who's to say if the law itself wasn't formed by some "mentally disordered" person, rendering it wrong to be followed. See what I'm getting at? Originally posted by Breton If you smash a fly on the wall, then this would be a choice, right? Not really, actually. I have the choice on whether I wanted to smash it in the first place. Originally posted by Breton Firstly, the prime reason for why you smashed that fly was because the fly was there. If the fly hadn't been there, you wouldn't have smashed it. Now, you have absolutly no control over the fly, so you can't choose if the fly would be there or not, thus you weren't able to choose whether or not you would smash a fly. Actually the prime reason was because I don't like flies, and flies sometimes carry dangerous diseases. Originally posted by Breton Further on, you will discover that there was loads of other reasons for why you smashed that fly. Such as: It made noise. If it hadn't made noise, you wouldn't have bothered smashing it. Yet, you can't choose whether or not the fly would make noise. Yet another evidence that you smashing that fly was not your own choice. I could choose to exercise self control and leave the area, or just ignore the noise. Originally posted by Breton Next one: The noise annoyed you. If the noise hadn't annoyed you, you wouldn't have bothered. Yet, how could you choose what would annoy you and what would not? It all depends on your mood at the time. Say I made a choice earlier in the day that annoyed me, and made me ornary for the rest of the day. Therefore, the noise from the fly, which normally would not have annoyed me, did, leading to my choice to smash it. Originally posted by Breton Another one, one of the prime reasons you smashed it: You were there. Now, you might say "It was my choice that I was there!", but if you look at the reasons for why you were there at that specific time, you'll see that it isn't true. Such as, you quit school early that day. You didn't choose your school schedule, so that's obvious. And others: Why were you inside? Well, perhaps it was raining, and that's why you were inside. You don't choose whether or not it rains. And perhaps it happened while you were sitting in your living room. Why were you sitting? Perhaps your legs ached. Yet another thing you can't choose. Umm, but I chose to quit school, I chose the classes for my schedule, I chose not to get wet, and I chose to sit on the couch, and not the chair downstairs, which was away from the fly. Originally posted by Breton And why didn't you let the fly out instead of smashing it? Perhaps you were angry at it for annoying you. You can't choose whether or not to be angry either. One does not choose one's mentality. Why didn't I move away? Why didn't I put on some Bose headphones to take away the noise? In fact, the question your asking is a choice in itself. It presents two options which I could have done, making it a question about choice. Originally posted by Breton And so you can go on and on and on. There's close to an infinite amount of reasons for why you smashed this fly, and close to and infinite amount of reasons for why each of these infinite reasons were existant. The only thing all these reasons have in common is that you have absolutly no control over any of them. My mother and father chose to have sex so that I would be born. I was born because of a choice my parents made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Breton, your compassion for humans is respectable. *salutes* However... Anyone who murders another person on "purpose" is acting outside of sanity and thus can be classified as mentally ill, in some way or another. This is wrong. You murdered my dad. I got angry. I murdered you back. Does that mean I'm mentally ill? No, I acted out of love for my dad. If I'm really mentally ill just because I killed the murderer, after a few years, when I got over the whole incident, does that mean I've been 'cured', without going to the doctor at all? I think that being seriously ill is only a reason for needing more help, and he should not be killed for something that is none of his fault and that he is unable to do anything with. Admirable statement. However, I wouldn't be so forgiving if I were the girl's parent. All your actions are decided not by you, but by how your brain works, how you were raised and what's happening around you. Neither of these three things do you have any control of. That's why I say criminals are "innocent", because they have no control what-so-ever over what they do, as their actions are preceeded by factors they have zero choice over. I was thinking whether to call my crush to ask her out a few weeks ago. I finally decided to call her. That is choice. Two wrongs does not make one right, honestly. I absolutely agree with you. But then again, I wouldn't be so forgiving if I were the girl's parent. Giving into anger like that rather than sense and understanding, you'd make a horrible Jedi...and cutting off people's genitals like that does indicate that you would be unable to control yourself when facing a highly emotional situation, so that's a way of mental disorder, I'm afraid. I think we all can agree that having a mental disorder equals having a mentality outside of what's normal Majority of us can't control our anger, I bet, when their loved ones are killed. And majority of us are normal. So does giving in to your anger = mental disorder? Don't think so. You have no control over what's happening around you, and you have no control over your own mentality. I believe that our life is in our hands. You reap what you sow. We're just going around in circles, and I believe this Breton is doing this for kicks. You are merely angry just because his opinion differs from yours, no offense. To cure what? According to what Breton said, to cure their 'mental disorder', if they have one. The noise doesn't bother me, I actually like it a bit. Strange, I find it irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Rythe Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 wow! What is this the big post compertition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Allanon You are merely angry just because his opinion differs from yours, no offense. I am not angry that he has an independent mind, and his own opinion. I just can't believe he considers criminals "innocent." And with all of this "treatment" he suggests, where is the money going to come from? Government? State? The people? I would rather pay off our huge national debt, than spend the ton of money it would require to "cure" the "mentally ill" criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 incapability of following a society's laws and rules when you are physically capable of doing so, is a mental disorder in itself. That is possibly the most fundamentally flawed argument I have ever read, and trust me, I've read a lot. Last time I checked, being human was not considered to be a mental disorder. But what do I know, I just study politics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 You've failed to even address my argument Breton. You're looking at this whole situation in such a simplistic, black and white method, that I'm truly shocked. Your arguments are well laid out and well explained, implying great intelligence, yet you fail to see the basic flaw in your reasoning. We (humans) dont understand our minds well enough to do what you suggest we should do. We dont know WHY those criminals kill or rape people, we don't know what causes a person to choose to break the law. And if we don't know WHY they do it, how can we treat that? Our knowledge of psychology is just so primitive and basic we can't DO anything about this. We understand that neurons are the basic building blocks of data transfer in our brains. We know that there are Neurotransmitters carrying information through the neuron's, passing that information into other neurons, and so forth. But we don't know what exactly those Neurotransmitters say, nor de we fully understand how our brain encodes and decodes those messages. We don't know why two siblings raised in the same household with similar genetics and identical up-bringing can have completely different personalitites, and even different levels of intelligence. And until the day that we finally figure these things out, we NEED prisons to hold those who have broken the laws of our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PerfectAgent_ Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Rythe wow! What is this the big post compertition? This is the big post contest: Get the biggest post that still makes sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.