Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 165 of 165
  1. #161
    Exactly is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    "Au Quebec, sex is not derrty."
    Posts
    465

    Default

    GAH I LOST MY POST NOW I HAVE TO TYPE IT AGAIN! >=(

    I think our disagreement stems from the way we view this "murderous intent" that these criminals seem to have -- that is, differently. (duh) You seem to think that there is definitely some kind of mental disorder, like schizophrenia, that makes people do bad things, like kill people. And if there really was definite disease that makes people homocidal, and we had a medicine for it, then great! It makes the sick people happy, and it makes us happy too.

    But IMHO it seems a bit too good to be true. A "criminal" disease? Dubious, perhaps, at best. The simple fact that we haven't found it already seems to indicate it's more complex than any existing mental disorder we know of. It's more likely that it's caused by a number of factors, e.g. the current situation, the way the guy/girl (you never know... psycho killer girl!) was brought up, his/her moral values, and of course, his/her brain. You often hear testimonies from criminals where they're going on about "sob sob... it was a horrible day... I was in a really bad mood that day because I just got sacked... then I saw this girl and she looked like my ex-girlfriend! I don't know what came over me!!!" etc. And as for premediated murders, there's none of the circumstancial thing, but there's still got to be a lot to do with the guy/girl's upbringing and environment.

    Anyway... It's almost to figure out anything except for the brain bit, through screening, as you say, assuming we do find a method that is accurate enough to pinpoint those people who have that type of brain. And, as you say, we'll have to work with probability.

    99.99% chance of killing someone. Yes, it makes sense to put him on medicine, since there's only a 0.01% chance that he won't. What do you think about 90%? Well, maybe. 80%? 50%? What's the limit? Who decides? Oh, and just out of curiosity, what do you consider the limit? (Directed at everybody following this thread.)

    Yeah, and obviously, since we don't know of the existence of such a disease yet, then we'll have to experiment to find out, until we know for sure there is one, or there isn't. At least there's somewhere we agree, Saizou. =) If these criminals really repent for their horrible deeds, then there's one way to help everybody else, rofl. This is assuming that the medical experimentation isn't horribly painful or traumatising. I'm not positive I would still be so willing if it involved daily surgery without anethesia, or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    Standard research guidelines. You know, don't kill the test subjects, don't cause unnecessary pain, etc. Thus far, they seem to have prevented abuses, no?
    In that case, Forward, in the name of Society!

    (Or we could like, experiment on homodical rodents. I had a hamster called Princess Peach. She bit both Mario and Luigi to death. Evil thing. Then she ate herself to death.)

    And regarding the screening from a young age thing: I think that's just a misunderstanding. If a kid's sick, or will definitely grow up and be sick, give him meds, by all means. But since brains grow, a normal-looking kid might grow out to be the world's most evil dude, due to some bad experience, perhaps. It seems hard to make sure that we'll know about these deviations unless we do pretty regular screens, since the "criminal disorder" seems a lot more subtle than any "serious mental disorders". My point there was that screening might become a rather large part of life, something I'd rather avoid. Again, if there really was a wonderful glitch in our minds that dictated whether or not we'd be criminals regardless of age, then go for it. But it does seem a bit improbable, if you don't mind me saying. Our experiences do have a major impact on us, as human beings, so I have difficulty believing that the criminal tendency is innate. I also have difficulty believing that this paragraph has a point anymore. But anyway... this was what I was trying to say, earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    I must reiterate: How the fuck can you determine who should be put on medication if you're not allowed to screen people. Don't you understand what the word means?
    Whoa, slow down there! I was just restating the topic at hand, don't get mad at me for that. I never said you shouldn't screen people, I was more concerned about the effects of the medicine on said people. But I do have some reservations if screening becomes a major thing, which, you must admit, is definitely not impossible. This is a personal thing, but my entire being rails against becoming just numbers and probabilities on a computer screen.

    So um... yeah, that's about it for now. I probably forgot something, because even I'm not convinced, but I'll think about it later. And a little something, Saizou -- I can kind of get why the argument between you and Shautieh became more like a flame war than anything else, since your way of posting is admittedly somewhat hostile. o.O Taking someone's argument apart sentence by sentence? I know it's a common way of debating, and I'm not saying your way is worse than anybody else's, but it feels a bit belittling (I felt a bit sad when I was reading your reply) and it'll probably leave everybody happier if you emphasise the merits of your own argument instead of trying to tear down opposing ones, although it is occasionally necessary. It also makes it easier for me, and hopefully some other people, to grasp your entire argument instead of just little bits of it, for my mind is small and does not like reading a long list of criticisms in order to figure out your main ideas. Thank you! For reading this, even if you choose to ignore it.
    text signature

  2. #162
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    I think our disagreement stems from the way we view this "murderous intent" that these criminals seem to have -- that is, differently. (duh) You seem to think that there is definitely some kind of mental disorder, like schizophrenia, that makes people do bad things, like kill people.
    No. What I'm saying that in certain cases crime is caused by mental disorders.

    Quote Originally Posted by exactly
    But IMHO it seems a bit too good to be true. A "criminal" disease? Dubious, perhaps, at best. The simple fact that we haven't found it already seems to indicate it's more complex than any existing mental disorder we know of. It's more likely that it's caused by a number of factors, e.g. the current situation, the way the guy/girl (you never know... psycho killer girl!) was brought up, his/her moral values, and of course, his/her brain. You often hear testimonies from criminals where they're going on about "sob sob... it was a horrible day... I was in a really bad mood that day because I just got sacked... then I saw this girl and she looked like my ex-girlfriend! I don't know what came over me!!!" etc. And as for premediated murders, there's none of the circumstancial thing, but there's still got to be a lot to do with the guy/girl's upbringing and environment.
    Jesus. Look, what I've been saying all along is that in some cases mental disorders are responsible for a criminal act. I've never said that all crime is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    99.99% chance of killing someone. Yes, it makes sense to put him on medicine, since there's only a 0.01% chance that he won't. What do you think about 90%? Well, maybe. 80%? 50%? What's the limit? Who decides? Oh, and just out of curiosity, what do you consider the limit? (Directed at everybody following this thread.)
    In the case of human behaviour it's virtually impossible to give a hard percentile probability for any given action. I'd say that as long as something constitutes a clear and reasonable danger, society should act to prevent that risk. E.g. gun regulations or medication for psychotic people, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    Yeah, and obviously, since we don't know of the existence of such a disease yet, then we'll have to experiment to find out, until we know for sure there is one, or there isn't. At least there's somewhere we agree, Saizou. =) If these criminals really repent for their horrible deeds, then there's one way to help everybody else, rofl. This is assuming that the medical experimentation isn't horribly painful or traumatising. I'm not positive I would still be so willing if it involved daily surgery without anethesia, or something.
    What I don't get is why everyone seems to assume that medical research must necessarily involve pain and suffering. In fact, I spent four fucking pages arguing that revenge doesn't have anything to do with justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    And regarding the screening from a young age thing: I think that's just a misunderstanding. If a kid's sick, or will definitely grow up and be sick, give him meds, by all means. But since brains grow, a normal-looking kid might grow out to be the world's most evil dude, due to some bad experience, perhaps. It seems hard to make sure that we'll know about these deviations unless we do pretty regular screens, since the "criminal disorder" seems a lot more subtle than any "serious mental disorders". My point there was that screening might become a rather large part of life, something I'd rather avoid.
    First I've nevar said that there is a "criminal disorder". Secondly, you'll probably have a routine medical checkup at least once or twice a year (or at least you should have if you're concerned about your health). At those examinations they screen you for other diseases anyway, so why not check for potential mental disorders at the same time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    Whoa, slow down there! I was just restating the topic at hand, don't get mad at me for that. I never said you shouldn't screen people, I was more concerned about the effects of the medicine on said people. But I do have some reservations if screening becomes a major thing, which, you must admit, is definitely not impossible. This is a personal thing, but my entire being rails against becoming just numbers and probabilities on a computer screen.
    And who the hell has said anything about numbers on a computer screen? See, this is the problem when people start to sensationalize the whole discussion. You get evil doctors, evil computerization and FREEDOM KILLING!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    So um... yeah, that's about it for now. I probably forgot something, because even I'm not convinced, but I'll think about it later. And a little something, Saizou -- I can kind of get why the argument between you and Shautieh became more like a flame war than anything else, since your way of posting is admittedly somewhat hostile.
    Only when necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    o.O Taking someone's argument apart sentence by sentence? I know it's a common way of debating, and I'm not saying your way is worse than anybody else's, but it feels a bit belittling (I felt a bit sad when I was reading your reply)
    Discussion in a point-by-point manner is the best way to debate in text since every individual argument necessitates an individual response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exactly
    and it'll probably leave everybody happier if you emphasise the merits of your own argument instead of trying to tear down opposing ones, although it is occasionally necessary.
    I did. For four pages. And yet people still want me to repeat myself. If you want to know about the merits of my argument, read the fucking thread.

  3. #163
    Exactly is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    "Au Quebec, sex is not derrty."
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    No. What I'm saying that in certain cases crime is caused by mental disorders.
    So you're saying that some crimes may be caused by certain mental disorders, and if this is the case, we should find out what these are and medicate them.
    Uh, I see no point in disagreeing anymore if I don't disagree. Sucks that I've spent all my time misunderstanding you when I don't actually think too differently. I thought you meant we could somehow magically predict if they had a brain that would commit crimes, which isn't very plausible.

    Speaking of which, I haven't been for a checkup for about 10 years, by my last count. (I suspect this is the case for a lot of people here. We don't really believe in check-ups.) I may be one of those potential criminals that avoid screens in the future, how bad of me. I have a "it'll go away if I leave it alone" approach to sicknesses, and I hardly get sick anyway. It's not the best way to go about it, but hey, I'm still alive! =) I'm going to live at my aunt's place for a while, though, and she is a doctor, so I don't think I can keep avoiding it anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    And who the hell has said anything about numbers on a computer screen? See, this is the problem when people start to sensationalize the whole discussion. You get evil doctors, evil computerization and FREEDOM KILLING!!!
    Sorry, that was bad. But...
    Quote Originally Posted by me lol
    But I do have some reservations if screening becomes a major thing, which, you must admit, is definitely not impossible. This is a personal thing, but my entire being rails against becoming just numbers and probabilities on a computer screen.
    I probably made it sound too much like it was in the definite future, when I don't think that way. I admit that the possibility of something like that happening very unlikely, my bad. I only think that IF something crazy like that happens, then I wouldn't like it. Obviously. You wouldn't like it either, I bet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    In the case of human behaviour it's virtually impossible to give a hard percentile probability for any given action. I'd say that as long as something constitutes a clear and reasonable danger, society should act to prevent that risk. E.g. gun regulations or medication for psychotic people, etc.
    It's rather difficult to define clear and reasonable. I don't think we can ever expect anything better if we've been working with nothing more than that for years and years. There had better be a very definite mental disorder, if there is one, and ample proof to support it, if we ever put these otherwise seemingly-normal folk on medication, because it still makes me uncomfortable because these guys aren't going around thinking they're two people or whatever. They just happened to do something bad. Oh well, more research!

    Oh, and yeah, I have read the entire thread a while ago, but have never really committed most of it to memory, just a very vague kind of idea of what it was about. I've forgotten the details of most of what I read, so you'll have to excuse me for that. The reason I would have preferred a more complete response is that it would probably have been easier for me to figure out that you don't actually believe that there is a OHNO CRIMINAL DISEASE or a WONDERFUL CRIME PREDICTING SCREENING MACHINE like I originally thought, although I probably should have reread the thread to make sure. And finally, you take yourself, and this thread, way, way too seriously. =P

    I don't go on a forum to think! I save that for real life. But that's a lie, since I don't think then anyway.
    text signature

  4. #164
    sand_tragedy is offline Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    Except that we already do so. People with psychotic and schizophrenic disorders are already put on medication.
    No we don’t. Those already on medication have been proven to have a mental disorder, through intensive psychiatric therapy and medical testing and the like, or have already committed crimes. We do not medicate those who have not been proven mentally troubled or have a high “probability” of disorder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    What I don't get is this insistence on certain knowledge. No matter how clear the case is, one can never attain 100% certainty. What we have to work with is probability.
    I simply do not understand how you can justify medicating people on probability and chance, and indefinite advantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    Standard research guidelines. You know, don't kill the test subjects, don't cause unnecessary pain, etc. Thus far, they seem to have prevented abuses, no?
    And where is your evidence …?


    How long would you actually put these “potential” criminals on meds for?

    You want evidence? Fine, enjoy :

    The Tuskegee Syphilus Experiment

    The U.S Public Health Service (PHS) began using penicillin to treat syphilis in 1943. Despite penicillin being a safe and effective treatment, the PHS deliberately withheld the treatment to a group of African-American males in Tuskegee, distributing the lists of patients to other physicians, instructing them not to treat patients with penicillin. PHS also performed sham “treatments”, in an attempt to discourage patients from seeking help elsewhere. In one such case Dr. Vonderlehr, of the PHS, practiced a fraud on the subjects by offering a painful lumbar puncture as a "special free treatment", when, in fact, the procedure was purely diagnostic and only for the benefit of the researchers. Subjects, were not even informed of their condition.

    For the sake of shortening my post, I will not include all the other evidence I have found.
    no way to way, no limitation to limitation...

  5. #165
    Exactly is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    "Au Quebec, sex is not derrty."
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Sand_tragedy: From what I understood, Saizou is suggesting that "certain crimes are caused by mental disorders". By conducting research, we may one day find such a definite, well-established disorder, then give medication to those who have it to help prevent crime.

    This is assuming that there is one of these disorders, but nobody knows yet.
    text signature

 

 
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79