First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Why do people engage in self-destructive behavior?
4326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Texas
Offline
Posted 1/9/13
Because we are all stupid
1687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The heart of Linc...
Offline
Posted 1/9/13
Sadly a good portion of the population is stupid. No ifs, buts or maybes. There are stupid enough people.

I've seen people willing attempt to walk through glass, claiming there was a door there in the last 10 minutes, trying to walk through it several times.
I witnessed a mother come into a store, browsed for over half an hour before her friend rushed in to check on her. The mother left her 2 kids, a 6 month old in the care of a 2 year old, outside in the autumn wind while they had summer clothes on. She then went to say it was the stores duty to look after them because she was inside and they were outside.
HOW CAN A MOTHER BE SO STUPID?!

Sorry for the shout, but I can't begin to understand these warped people. I even had a man accuse me of stealing, I didn't have to empty my pockets cos my manager believed me, I showed i had nothing yet the man insisted, despite the fact the the money he claimed I took was still in his pocket. The manager wanted security to teach him a lesson, he ranted and swore as he left saying it was against the customer is always right and his human rights plus slander to call him a liar. I loved what the security team said to him:
"It works both ways sir, it's not a one way road. You claimed this man was a thief when you lied, he has every right to sue you for slander."

Why are so many people ignorant of their own self harm? Why is it that there isn't more cases where the stupid only hurt themselves but the innocent instead?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/9/13

lordseth23 wrote:

Are you actually saying that there is not much of a difference between a rapist and non-rapist? That is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that every man (and to a lesser extent woman) has the psychological make-up to commit the worst of crimes. I can assure you that there are people out there who would NEVER resort to sexual assault in dealing with their problems because they have enough empathic knowledge to recognize the evilness of such a crime. And yes, a rapist may not be considered "mentally-ill", but clearly they do not exhibit enough empathy in order to be allowed in society.

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/usvpros/pbinder/tab09/offendersslides/img8.html


No, there is not much difference between a rapist and a non-rapist psychologically speaking. You then go on to some random rant about how it offends your views of human nature, which seems only founded on your observation rather than any actual science. Just because someone has the psychological problems that are also found in rapist, does not mean that they are going to be rapist, which is where you whole theory rest- certain behaviours and certain psychology will immediately lead to one becoming a rapist, and that we should lock away all the mentally ill people in nuthouses. You use explicitly moral terms such as 'evil' and 'dispicable' to describe them, and then speak about empathy, and ask that they be shut off from society because their lack of it- so, you would like for all people who share common psychological problems with rapists be locked up- even if they probably will not rape at all.

In fact, you post up a slide, which mostly confirms what I have said- a rapist is practically undetectable within society, and blends in well. Dr Groth already confirmed that most rapist have access to consensual sex (some are married, do not have trouble getting into relationships, etc.), so, if sex was their primary motive, they already have access to it, rather than take it out forcibly via rape, which actually works to disprove your own little pet theory.






Why do you condone sexual assault?



No, if you have read what I said, I merely said that there is a difference between sexual assault and attempted rape.




No, it does not "unconsciously blame the victim", that is just your personal excuse for wanting to maintain status quo and advocate rape/sexual assault.




No, you are doing just that, you are unconsciously blaming the victim for being 'too provocative', which incite the lust of men, and cause them to be raped- they are living this lifestyle, they are too sexually free, they cause themselves to be raped. This is pretty much the same mode of thinking that holds currency in areas where the government force ultra-moral lives upon its citizenry, in Saudi Arabia for example. You want to return us to an inferior mode of thought that have already died off in the free world, unhindered by puritanism, and some of your statement are so absurd and vacuous, I have a feeling that you are not being entirely serious about this.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/9/13 , edited 1/9/13

longfenglim wrote:


No, there is not much difference between a rapist and a non-rapist psychologically speaking. You then go on to some random rant about how it offends your views of human nature, which seems only founded on your observation rather than any actual science. Just because someone has the psychological problems that are also found in rapist, does not mean that they are going to be rapist, which is where you whole theory rest- certain behaviours and certain psychology will immediately lead to one becoming a rapist, and that we should lock away all the mentally ill people in nuthouses. You use explicitly moral terms such as 'evil' and 'dispicable' to describe them, and then speak about empathy, and ask that they be shut off from society because their lack of it- so, you would like for all people who share common psychological problems with rapists be locked up- even if they probably will not rape at all.


Of course I would, because it would eliminate the possibility of rape and sexual assault ever happening again in society. People could enter into relationships knowing for certain that they will never be abused.


In fact, you post up a slide, which mostly confirms what I have said- a rapist is practically undetectable within society, and blends in well. Dr Groth already confirmed that most rapist have access to consensual sex (some are married, do not have trouble getting into relationships, etc.), so, if sex was their primary motive, they already have access to it, rather than take it out forcibly via rape, which actually works to disprove your own little pet theory.


You should look at the entire presentation and accompanying notes to be fully informed on the subject. There are definite characteristics that separate rapists from non-rapists, as alluded to when the author claims that rapists have some serious things wrong with their personality. A person who exhibits these characteristics should not be allowed to wander freely in society. They should, at the very least, be required to see a psychiatrist on a regular basis and be educated on how their destructive tendancies endanger women.






Why do you condone sexual assault?



No, if you have read what I said, I merely said that there is a difference between sexual assault and attempted rape.


Thus, you are justifying these situations as acceptable.




No, you are doing just that, you are unconsciously blaming the victim for being 'too provocative', which incite the lust of men, and cause them to be raped- they are living this lifestyle, they are too sexually free, they cause themselves to be raped. This is pretty much the same mode of thinking that holds currency in areas where the government force ultra-moral lives upon its citizenry, in Saudi Arabia for example. You want to return us to an inferior mode of thought that have already died off in the free world, unhindered by puritanism, and some of your statement are so absurd and vacuous, I have a feeling that you are not being entirely serious about this.


Educating people about a subject does not force morality on them in any way. The only thing it does is allow people to make better choices.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/9/13 , edited 1/15/13
*sigh* Yet another loaded thread topic. Heres a question: Why do so many people who have little to no experience with sex, drugs and alcohol ask why people do it only to incite arguments because they feel a certain way about people who choose to live their lives this way?

I have done drugs, had casual sex and drank my share (and im sure most of the people on this forum's share) of alcohol but I am by no means an alcoholic, a drug addict or a rapist. I lead a very prosperous and successful life and I have never done anything (with drugs, alcohol or sex) that I have come to regret. Yes some people abuse sex, drugs and alcohol but it has nothing to do with the substance or the practice. Its a psychological issue.

Youre free to believe what you want but having such a strong belief against something you dont know shit about is just idiotic in my opinion.

The real question that should be asked is why do people let certain aspects of life consume them to the point where it is self destructive becuase there are so many things that a person can become consumed by that will destroy their lives and the lives of the ones that they care for but that would be a question that an unbiased person would ask. The initial post and all the posts of the OP that follow, lead me to believe that he has a bias against individuals that practice casual sex and consume drugs and alcohol. I dont believe that it was ever his intention to listen to the opinions of the other people on this forum and gain a further understanding of the human mind. Instead, I think he just wanted to see who would say "hey, there's nothing wrong with sex, drugs and alcohol" and just bash them for it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/9/13

lordseth23 wrote:

Of course I would, because it would eliminate the possibility of rape and sexual assault ever happening again in society. People could enter into relationships knowing for certain that they will never be abused.


John Rawls once theorised that to be just is to be fair, Lord Seth's theory hold the opposite, to be just is to be discriminate. People would be happy to know that someone they love is being locked up for the potential to commit a crime, so, that being the case, let's lock everyone up- eveyone can potentially be a murderer, a rapist, a theif, etc. This is, as Aristotle would say, ἡ εἰς ἀτοπον ἀπαγωγη.




You should look at the entire presentation and accompanying notes to be fully informed on the subject. There are definite characteristics that separate rapists from non-rapists, as alluded to when the author claims that rapists have some serious things wrong with their personality. A person who exhibits these characteristics should not be allowed to wander freely in society. They should, at the very least, be required to see a psychiatrist on a regular basis and be educated on how their destructive tendancies endanger women.


No, I have read through it and it says nothing of the sort. People generally have psychological disorder, and not all rapes are aimed at females (though the majority of them are), having certain psychological disorders common with the Rapist does not make one a Rapist, and one is not a Rapist until one actually rapes. You are simply asking to imprison and/or punish people for the potential to commit crime, when they have not done anything wrong. There is a good reason why we have wisely base our courts upon the principles of the presumption of innocence.





Thus, you are justifying these situations as acceptable.


There is difference between sexual assault and rape- being different does not make one suddenly acceptable.





Educating people about a subject does not force morality on them in any way. The only thing it does is allow people to make better choices.


No, your education is propounding your ignorance, education is a great thing, telling people to abstain from casual sex, alcohol, and drugs is not education, it is moralisation, and to say any of these lead to rape shows a want of education on the part of the educator.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/10/13 , edited 1/15/13

longfenglim wrote:

People would be happy to know that someone they love is being locked up for the potential to commit a crime, so, that being the case, let's lock everyone up- eveyone can potentially be a murderer, a rapist, a theif, etc.


No, not everyone has the potential to be a rapist, as my credible source clearly states in defining the characteristics of a rapist. Only people who are not raised in a proper empathic manner as children have the potential to be rapists (I am beginning to think that you belong in this category, so please read up on the empathic research that has been done in order to understand where your cruel behavior comes from). These people do not have the capacity to love someone, so it is better that they be removed from their friends/girlfriends/wives until they alleviate their destructive tendencies through learning empathy.



No, I have read through it and it says nothing of the sort.


Bullshit. Read the entire presentation.

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/usvpros/pbinder/tab09/offendersslides/img10.html


People generally have psychological disorder, and not all rapes are aimed at females (though the majority of them are), having certain psychological disorders common with the Rapist does not make one a Rapist, and one is not a Rapist until one actually rapes.


But they have the potential to be a rapist, which is why they should be removed from society until they are able to demonstrate proper empathic behavior.



You are simply asking to imprison and/or punish people for the potential to commit crime, when they have not done anything wrong.


It is better to eliminate the destructive behavior from a person before it leads to a crime.






Thus, you are justifying these situations as acceptable.


There is difference between sexual assault and rape- being different does not make one suddenly acceptable.


You imply that it is acceptable by stating that the statistic is irrelevant to the conversation.



No, your education is propounding your ignorance, education is a great thing, telling people to abstain from casual sex, alcohol, and drugs is not education, it is moralisation, and to say any of these lead to rape shows a want of education on the part of the educator.


Education does not involve telling people what to do.



CLarose wrote:

The real question that should be asked is why do people let certain aspects of life consume them to the point where it is self destructive becuase there are so many things that a person can become consumed by that will destroy their lives and the lives of the ones that they care for but that would be a question that an unbiased person would ask.


Yes, anything that is self-destructive would be relevant to this thread, hence the name. It was never intended to be limited to just alcohol, drugs, and casual sex; those are just the examples that I give.


The initial post and all the posts of the OP that follow, lead me to believe that he has a bias against individuals that practice casual sex and consume drugs and alcohol.


I apologize if it appears that way, but I only have a misunderstanding with the people that abuse these practices.


I dont believe that it was ever his intention to listen to the opinions of the other people on this forum and gain a further understanding of the human mind. Instead, I think he just wanted to see who would say "hey, there's nothing wrong with sex, drugs and alcohol" and just bash them for it.


When did I ever bash people? The only user on here that I appeared to be rude to is longfenglim, and that was only because he was dismissing my sources as incorrect and non-credible, not because of his thoughts and opinions. Having a debate with someone is not bashing them in any way, unless of course you insult them while doing so.

10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/10/13 , edited 1/15/13

lordseth23 wrote:

Why is society so focused on the abuse of alcohol, drugs, and casual sex?


What makes you think that society is focused on these things? When you say "society" who are you actually referring to?


lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:

The initial post and all the posts of the OP that follow, lead me to believe that he has a bias against individuals that practice casual sex and consume drugs and alcohol.


I apologize if it appears that way, but I only have a misunderstanding with the people that abuse these practices.




It's the same reason people abuse any practice. Plain and simple. It's called addiction. You already know the reason. Like I said, it seems like you wanted to incite a pointless argument because you want to stand on your moral soapbox.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/10/13 , edited 1/15/13

CLarose wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

Why is society so focused on the abuse of alcohol, drugs, and casual sex?


What makes you think that society is focused on these things? When you say "society" who are you actually referring to?


The most popular entertainment in the United States puts a great amount of emphasis on these things.



It's the same reason people abuse any practice. Plain and simple. It's called addiction. You already know the reason. Like I said, it seems like you wanted to incite a pointless argument because you want to stand on your moral soapbox.

The next question we must ask is what leads people to these addictions. Do we need to educate them more on the possible consequences of their actions? Do we need to slightly alter the culture that we live in to lessen the likelihood that people get addicted to these actions? Have people really thought about the consequences of these actions, to the point where they can honestly say that there is no other alternative behavior that they could pursue which would make them happier with their lives?

If we are able to discuss the answers to these questions in an open, honest, and respectable way, then it should not be considered pointless arguing, but a healthy debate on how to improve lives.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/10/13 , edited 1/10/13


Entertainment doesn't put alcohol abuse, or drug abuse in a positive light. I dunno where you get that from. Just because there are people drinking and people doing drugs on tv or talking about it in music doesn't mean people are more inclined to abuse. People have been doing drugs and drinking alcohol for a long time and entertainment is basically a mirror of all that.

As far as casual sex goes, you seem to believe that casual sex is all about men taking advantage of poor old women when that is not the case. Last time I checked, women are out there looking for casual sex just as much as men. Casual sex doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies if both parties practice responsibly and it would never lead to rape if both people are consenting.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/10/13 , edited 1/10/13

lordseth23 wrote:

No, not everyone has the potential to be a rapist, as my credible source clearly states in defining the characteristics of a rapist. Only people who are not raised in a proper empathic manner as children have the potential to be rapists (I am beginning to think that you belong in this category, so please read up on the empathic research that has been done in order to understand where your cruel behavior comes from). These people do not have the capacity to love someone, so it is better that they be removed from their friends/girlfriends/wives until they alleviate their destructive tendencies through learning empathy.


Ha ha! No, your credible source does not clearly say anything about the defining characteristics of a rapist- it states that there are some characteristics that are common to rapists, but these characteristics are not limited to rapists. You say only people who are not raised in 'a proper empathic manner as children' have the potential to be rapists- that is clearly bullshit, because to recieve empathy, even as children, is not the same as developing empathy, and since you are clearly unempathetic and heartless as to lock up people who may potentially commit rape (you may as well lock everyone up for potentially committing a crime, after all, then the world'll be completely safe), despite, I assume, receiving an 'empathetic rearing'. Clearly, being so unempathetic and thinking that casual sex would lead men, like yourself, to rape- you must have a very high potential to be a rapist! Huzzah! Hoisted by your own petard.

Of course, you were never smart- you are basically asking to imprison and punish people for the crime of being potentially able to commit a crime- most violent offenders have a history of emotional or physical abuse, let's lock away all abused children so they won't become abusers. Rapists are moved by lust of power- let's imprison all the people who have any form of power-lust. They need to 'learn empathy', these people, who are being 'punished' for crimes they have not committed- so, I assume, you would be the first to go to these empathetic didactic sessions, followed by a swift course in justice, and maybe read up on something called 'the presumption of innocence until proven guilty'.






Yes, because, according to your slide, Rape only happens to women, and men are the only perpetrator of rape. Those are only characteristics that are commonly found in Rapist, and does not exclude its not being found in the rest of the male population. Congrats on disinformation.


But they have the potential to be a rapist, which is why they should be removed from society until they are able to demonstrate proper empathic behavior.


Not how modern justice words- every man have a pair of gonads- that can be potentially used as a tool of rape. So, let's lock them up or castrate them, then we will release them back to society.



It is better to eliminate the destructive behavior from a person before it leads to a crime.


So, basically injustice is good if it removes a potential for crime.

You know, since you have the potential to commit a crime, any crime, such as murder, rape, arson, etc. (you just need a victim, a place, and the tools), you should be locked up. Reductio ad absurdum.



You imply that it is acceptable by stating that the statistic is irrelevant to the conversation.


It is irrelevant, because Rape is a form of Sexual assault, not all sexual assault is rape.



Education does not involve telling people what to do.


Yours does.

That was the stupidest conversation I have ever had with anyone.



lordseth23 wrote:



When did I ever bash people? The only user on here that I appeared to be rude to is longfenglim, and that was only because he was dismissing my sources as incorrect and non-credible, not because of his thoughts and opinions. Having a debate with someone is not bashing them in any way, unless of course you insult them while doing so.


Reread your little 'debate' with me, and you will find evidence aplenty. You accuse me of doing something I have never done, and you were accusing me of being a potential rapist.

Congrats, Tartuffe.



Entertainment doesn't put alcohol abuse, or drug abuse in a positive light. I dunno where you get that from. Just because there are people drinking and people doing drugs on tv or talking about it in music doesn't mean people are more inclined to abuse. People have been doing drugs and drinking alcohol for a long time and entertainment is basically a mirror of all that.

As far as casual sex goes, you seem to believe that casual sex is all about men taking advantage of poor old women when that is not the case. Last time I checked, women are out there looking for casual sex just as much as men. Casual sex doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies if both parties practice responsibly and it would never lead to rape if both people are consenting.

He also thinks that casual sex will turn people into rapists.

Also, that you should be 'kept away from society' for the potential to commit a crime. Apartheid anyone?
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/10/13 , edited 1/10/13

CLarose wrote:

Entertainment doesn't put alcohol abuse, or drug abuse in a positive light. I dunno where you get that from. Just because there are people drinking and people doing drugs on tv or talking about it in music doesn't mean people are more inclined to abuse. People have been doing drugs and drinking alcohol for a long time and entertainment is basically a mirror of all that.


Exactly, this entertainment is a mirror of how society operates, so it is putting unneeded emphasis on drug and alcohol consumption.


As far as casual sex goes, you seem to believe that casual sex is all about men taking advantage of poor old women when that is not the case. Last time I checked, women are out there looking for casual sex just as much as men. Casual sex doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies if both parties practice responsibly and it would never lead to rape if both people are consenting.


This wouldn't be a problem if some men did not have the psychological deficiencies that cause them to rape and sexually assault women. If we can eliminate these deficiencies through education and proper parenting, then there would be nothing wrong with casual sex.


longfenglim wrote:

Ha ha! No, your credible source does not clearly say anything about the defining characteristics of a rapist- it states that there are some characteristics that are common to rapists, but these characteristics are not limited to rapists.


Maybe so, but they are still the characteristics that we must eliminate from society.


You say only people who are not raised in 'a proper empathic manner as children' have the potential to be rapists- that is clearly bullshit, because to recieve empathy, even as children, is not the same as developing empathy, and since you are clearly unempathetic and heartless as to lock up people who may potentially commit rape (you may as well lock everyone up for potentially committing a crime, after all, then the world'll be completely safe), despite, I assume, receiving an 'empathetic rearing'.


In order to develop a proper empathic mind, you must receive an adequate amount of empathy as a child. In identifying a person that lacks empathy, it can be assumed that they did not recieve empathy as a child and never had the opportunity to develop empathy on their own. A child that receives empathy since birth, on the other hand, will be able to develop enough empathy as they grow older to function as a perfectly normal citizen of society that will never have the psychological problems that a typical rapist has.

I do not know if a non-empathic person can recover from their traumatic childhood. If they can, then we need to get help to them so they can function in society without causing any problems. If they can't, then we need to remove them from society by whatever means necessary in order to protect innocent citizens.



They need to 'learn empathy', these people, who are being 'punished' for crimes they have not committed- so, I assume, you would be the first to go to these empathetic didactic sessions, followed by a swift course in justice, and maybe read up on something called 'the presumption of innocence until proven guilty'.


Oh yes, absolutely. I am fascinated by the topic and it would only improve me as a human being (or monster if you do not consider me to be human).





Yes, because, according to your slide, Rape only happens to women, and men are the only perpetrator of rape. Those are only characteristics that are commonly found in Rapist, and does not exclude its not being found in the rest of the male population. Congrats on disinformation.


You really shouldn't use double negatives like this, it is bad grammar and doesn't make you look like the genius that you are.


Not how modern justice words- every man have a pair of gonads- that can be potentially used as a tool of rape. So, let's lock them up or castrate them, then we will release them back to society.


If they were raised properly or have developed enough empathy, they would never consider raping someone.



So, basically injustice is good if it removes a potential for crime.


How is preventing rape an injustice?


You know, since you have the potential to commit a crime, any crime, such as murder, rape, arson, etc. (you just need a victim, a place, and the tools), you should be locked up. Reductio ad absurdum.


Why don't you just kill me instead? That way I wouldn't be sucking up tax dollars.




You imply that it is acceptable by stating that the statistic is irrelevant to the conversation.


It is irrelevant, because Rape is a form of Sexual assault, not all sexual assault is rape.


But sexual assault, like rape, is a crime that we should concentrate on eliminating, which is why it is relevant.




Education does not involve telling people what to do.


Yours does.


No it doesn't.

How can education ever consist of telling people what to do?


longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:



When did I ever bash people? The only user on here that I appeared to be rude to is longfenglim, and that was only because he was dismissing my sources as incorrect and non-credible, not because of his thoughts and opinions. Having a debate with someone is not bashing them in any way, unless of course you insult them while doing so.


Reread your little 'debate' with me, and you will find evidence aplenty. You accuse me of doing something I have never done, and you were accusing me of being a potential rapist.

Congrats, Tartuffe.


Fail. XD

Do you agree with me that potential rapists exist? Or do you still believe that every man has the potential to rape?

According to the theory that you are/were advocating, I couldn't accuse you of being a potential rapist no more than I could accuse you of being human.


longfenglim wrote:

He also thinks that casual sex will turn people into rapists.


You talked me out of this one by clearly explaining what causes men to rape.


Also, that you should be 'kept away from society' for the potential to commit a crime. Apartheid anyone?


Not any crime, just the potential to commit rape and sexual assault. I fully support segregating potential criminals if they do not have the ability to transform themselves into citizens that can obey the spirit of the law, not just the word of it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/12/13




Maybe so, but they are still the characteristics that we must eliminate from society.


Yes, punishment for the potentiality to commit a crime. Just imagine if this excellent principle was applied to childrearing- I give my child a good birching for having the potential to steal candies and cookies, and then give him a stern lecture on why he shouldn't take candies and cookies, or grounding him, and telling him the virtues of getting good grades just because, regardless of his grades at the moment, he has the potential to fail. Imagine how that'll work out.


In order to develop a proper empathic mind, you must receive an adequate amount of empathy as a child. In identifying a person that lacks empathy, it can be assumed that they did not recieve empathy as a child and never had the opportunity to develop empathy on their own. A child that receives empathy since birth, on the other hand, will be able to develop enough empathy as they grow older to function as a perfectly normal citizen of society that will never have the psychological problems that a typical rapist has.

I do not know if a non-empathic person can recover from their traumatic childhood. If they can, then we need to get help to them so they can function in society without causing any problems. If they can't, then we need to remove them from society by whatever means necessary in order to protect innocent citizens.


1. Bullshit, because the psychological problems cannot simply be traced to a single source-rearing, so that's bullshit already.

2. You are basically punishing a person for having a traumatic childhood- he hasn't done a crime yet, you just decide that he has the potential to commit a crime based upon his abusive history, and then lock him up so that he can be a 'functional member of society'.

3. You do realise that your plan involve locking more people up than the government can afford to? As in, more money than we already don't have?


Oh yes, absolutely. I am fascinated by the topic and it would only improve me as a human being (or monster if you do not consider me to be human).


Oh yes, intern yourself in the nearest madhouse then.


You really shouldn't use double negatives like this, it is bad grammar and doesn't make you look like the genius that you are.


Better bad grammar than bad logic.


If they were raised properly or have developed enough empathy, they would never consider raping someone.


Of course, you are willing to lock people up based upon psychological problems and lack of empathy, why not go the full mile and cut off their gonads to make sure that no one gets raped?


How is preventing rape an injustice?


Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat


Why don't you just kill me instead? That way I wouldn't be sucking up tax dollars.


Because we already went over this in the suicide discussion- it would be bad for the economy.


But sexual assault, like rape, is a crime that we should concentrate on eliminating, which is why it is relevant.


But you were talking about rape, and so its irrelevant to a discussion on rape specifically.


No it doesn't.

How can education ever consist of telling people what to do?


Your vision of 'education' consist of three principles:

1. Do not have casual sex unless you are in a relationship. (Imperative)
2. Do not drink. (Imperative also)
3. Do not do drugs. (Again, and imperative)


Fail. XD

Do you agree with me that potential rapists exist? Or do you still believe that every man has the potential to rape?

According to the theory that you are/were advocating, I couldn't accuse you of being a potential rapist no more than I could accuse you of being human.


You have a penis, you can potentially use it as a tool of rape. If you don't have a penis, you can use a phallic-shaped tool as an instrument of rape. Either way, you are still potentially a rapist.

You were the one accusing me of being a potential/actual rapist.


Not any crime, just the potential to commit rape and sexual assault. I fully support segregating potential criminals if they do not have the ability to transform themselves into citizens that can obey the spirit of the law, not just the word of it.


So, you support segregating people based on their potentiality, rather than actuality?
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 1/12/13 , edited 1/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:

Why is society so focused on the abuse of alcohol, drugs, and casual sex? I do not understand why people willingly engage in these and similar activities. Do they provide enough utility in order to make a shorter and more painful life worth living? I would hope so, because there is no reason why this culture should take precedence over one based on love.


I really am not sure myself. I do notice sources of immediate pleasure (the common thread among alcohol, drugs, and promoscuity) are common in this area and appear together, but I'm not sure why. I always true to analyze the problem like any scientists would, and thus forget that there's a human element in it.

People say it's for socialization, but for me, that doens't make much sense to me personally. The term drinking "socially" seems very misused. To me, drinking socially is having some beer during a ball game or drinking some wine over dinner to unwind. You aren't inebriated, at least insofar as you can't remember anything, you just relax. It's like drinking a very potent cup of chamomile tea without feeling sleepy. That's what I think of when people say to drink socially. Instead, what I see are people who are unsatisfied with being sober. Maybe it's too boring, or too stressful, or mabye a bit of both, but only be being inebriated are they happy.

And to me, that's what it always felt like it was about: happiness. We live in a society that is obsessed with finding happiness but few of us really know how. Immediate sources of pleasure--such as drugs, alcohol, casual sex, and even other things like impusive buying form a "hedonic treadmill." Indeed, the entire culture around these immediate pleasures seem to be very escapist. I can't help but to admit I'm mostly thinking of the queer community here, simply because the gay villages are composed so much of bars and clubs it's downright depressing for people who don't care about those sorts of things. But then you have to wonder when you consider the fact that very same community is obsessed with theater and other forms of media like American TV. And just to clarify, I'm well aware there are plenty of queer people who aren't into theater, bars, clubs, etc.; I'm merely talking about the culture found within the gay villages themselves. And escapism is often about ignoring what goes on in real-life. In many ways, this seems to reinforce the notion it's about being unsatisfied with real-life, and let's face it, many of us only pay attenetion to what we consider is real-life (school, family, jobs, interns, etc.) when we're sober. Ultimately, it's just a form to obtain happiness via a hedonic treadmill approach, simpy because people en masse feel this is the way to find happiness. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong--I'm not commenting on that. I'm simply pointing it out.


EDIT: In regards to the discussion about rape....

It seems like there is a great misunderstanding over the definition of rape, and while both sides are valid (but not necessarily sound), they aren't addressing each other's arguments if they can't agree over definitions. Like it or not, Lordseth23 has had the right definition of rape. This doesn't validate her logic, but at least eliminate any stereotypes you have about rape before addressing her logic.

That said, the definition of rape is sex without consent. This is a deceptively simple definition, since what we think of as rape and what constitutes rape are worlds apart. If two people are "drunk" and they have sex, since they are inebriated, they failed to give consent. They--as bizarre as it sounds--raped each other because neither person gave consent. It's worth noting, at this point, people cannot give consent if they are under the influence by law. This is an extreme, but it's a perfectly valid example of rape. The most common case of rape is under the influence, because when the victim is under the influence they cannot (by law) give consent. Note, I said because the victim, NOT the perpetrator, is under the influence. A lot of that power control stuff? That only applies to cases where the victim was forcibly raped, or more accurately sexual assualt (which is more of what we consider rape to be). So, the correlation between rape and drugs/alcohol shouldn't be surprising, since drugs and alcohol inhibit people from giving consent. Likewise, since judgment is paired, perpatrators are not as good as reading body language, which means verbal body language is very important. Consider that statistic Lordseth23 cited not too long ago that mentioned 40% of men stopped when they said no. It's simply an example of this: usually both the perpetrator and victim were inebriated and thus verbal communication was more readable than body language.


Now, as far Sethlord23's other claims like it creates a sex-infested culture and all that? Well, for starters, there are men out there who go to bars where they (oftne soberly) pick up sex partners to get laid. And a lot of men do this. I don't really think this is as much about control as much as it is about getting laid. They have sexual needs, potential sex partners are more willingly to "give consent" (it's not actually considered consent by law since they are under the influence) because they are under the influence, and I think you can figure out the rest from there. It's easy prey, so to speak, and that isn't exactly something you can ignore. And if you read the statistics with how many men are wiling to go along with this... it's scary, to say the least.

Now, I'm not commenting if this is a problem, or if breeds a sex culture, or whatever else Lordseth23 comment--I'll just leave it be. But I do want to chime and clarify that the definition of rape is much mroe vague and broad than what some people think, and bring up the fact that horny people do take advantage of people under the influence. It's just what happens.

29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/13/13 , edited 1/15/13

longfenglim wrote:

Yes, punishment for the potentiality to commit a crime. Just imagine if this excellent principle was applied to childrearing- I give my child a good birching for having the potential to steal candies and cookies, and then give him a stern lecture on why he shouldn't take candies and cookies, or grounding him, and telling him the virtues of getting good grades just because, regardless of his grades at the moment, he has the potential to fail. Imagine how that'll work out.


That is the exact opposite of what I mean by good parenting. If you raise your child in a completely different manner, they will never have the potential to commit rape or sexual assault.


1. Bullshit, because the psychological problems cannot simply be traced to a single source-rearing, so that's bullshit already.


https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm#psych


2. You are basically punishing a person for having a traumatic childhood- he hasn't done a crime yet, you just decide that he has the potential to commit a crime based upon his abusive history, and then lock him up so that he can be a 'functional member of society'.


We should only lock them up if they cannot overcome their psychological deficiencies. Would you rather give James Holmes and Adam Lanza the freedom to have access to bulletproof vests and assault rifles when they have no criminal record yet? Or would you make them receive the psychological help that they need before they start murdering people?


3. You do realise that your plan involve locking more people up than the government can afford to? As in, more money than we already don't have?


Which is why we don't need to lock up everybody, just the people who cannot overcome their psychological deficiencies. Wouldn't you rather keep a person behind bars instead of giving them the freedom to rape/assault your loved ones?




You really shouldn't use double negatives like this, it is bad grammar and doesn't make you look like the genius that you are.


Better bad grammar than bad logic.


That would be false. It doesn't matter how good your logic is if you can't communicate it properly.



If they were raised properly or have developed enough empathy, they would never consider raping someone.


Of course, you are willing to lock people up based upon psychological problems and lack of empathy, why not go the full mile and cut off their gonads to make sure that no one gets raped?


Not necessary, because they would already be in prison. No one would get raped if we had the ability to give every disturbed person the psychological help that they need.



How is preventing rape an injustice?


Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat


We need to be proactive and prevent rape, not simply wait for it to happen.



Why don't you just kill me instead? That way I wouldn't be sucking up tax dollars.


Because we already went over this in the suicide discussion- it would be bad for the economy.


No it wouldn't. The cost for keeping me alive in prison would be greater than building a simple killing device to dispose of me and all other death-penalty criminals.



But sexual assault, like rape, is a crime that we should concentrate on eliminating, which is why it is relevant.


But you were talking about rape, and so its irrelevant to a discussion on rape specifically.


But the discussion is not limited to rape specifically, so it is relevant.


Your vision of 'education' consist of three principles:

1. Do not have casual sex unless you are in a relationship. (Imperative)
2. Do not drink. (Imperative also)
3. Do not do drugs. (Again, and imperative)


Those would be commandments. Commandments do not exist in education.



You have a penis, you can potentially use it as a tool of rape.


But, like many other perfectly sane men, I do not use it rape women. My moral intuition prevents me from ever committing such a crime.


If you don't have a penis, you can use a phallic-shaped tool as an instrument of rape.


This type of person has severe psychological issues that need to be tended to immediately.


You were the one accusing me of being a potential/actual rapist.


Alright, sir. Please fill out this form and we will get back to you momentarily.
http://www.butthurtreportform.com/




Not any crime, just the potential to commit rape and sexual assault. I fully support segregating potential criminals if they do not have the ability to transform themselves into citizens that can obey the spirit of the law, not just the word of it.


So, you support segregating people based on their potentiality, rather than actuality?


If they have the potential to commit a severe crime, then yes.

Going off of what Zoraprime said, do we really want to live in a hyper-sexualized environment where regret all too often takes place? Are social gatherings that focus on quenching the libido acceptable when they cause women to make decisions they wouldn't otherwise make, or provide a sexual predator with the means necessary to perform their horrific acts?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.