First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Why do people engage in self-destructive behavior?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

lordseth23 wrote:How would the permanence be impossible if they have the knowledge to make it permanent?


Not sure if you are aware of this, but psychological problems are divorced from knowledge of the psychological problem- you may well be depressed and know that you are depressed, but that does not make you any less depress nor does this knowledge cure you.



But they have the possibility to commit a severe crime, which is why we need to make them happy so they never have the chance to do so.


They have the possibility to commit a crime, that possibility is not an indication of whether or not they are content. A person may well be happy one day, and commit a severe crime the next.





I never claimed that 'being greedy and spoiled children of an ultra-rich family' was the severe psychological issue. There was something else in their psyche that caused them to murder their parents.



Then, it is not the place of my learned friend to make speculation, and present them as fact, especially when his speculations are not substantiated by any evidence.



Nice typo you have there, nincompoop.


Foolish child, why look'st thou upon my small mote, when there's a beam in thy own!
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:How would the permanence be impossible if they have the knowledge to make it permanent?


Not sure if you are aware of this, but psychological problems are divorced from knowledge of the psychological problem- you may well be depressed and know that you are depressed, but that does not make you any less depress nor does this knowledge cure you.


That is why we need to get help to these people that do have psychological problems.




But they have the possibility to commit a severe crime, which is why we need to make them happy so they never have the chance to do so.


They have the possibility to commit a crime, that possibility is not an indication of whether or not they are content. A person may well be happy one day, and commit a severe crime the next.


Which is why we need to supply them with the knowledge that prevents them from ever developing the psychological issues that cause them to commit a severe crime.






I never claimed that 'being greedy and spoiled children of an ultra-rich family' was the severe psychological issue. There was something else in their psyche that caused them to murder their parents.

Then, it is not the place of my learned friend to make speculation, and present them as fact, especially when his speculations are not substantiated by any evidence.


Why do I need evidence to prove common sense?

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

lordseth23 wrote:


That is why we need to get help to these people that do have psychological problems.


Your argument is running around in a circle, which goes something like this:

We need to alter people's thoughts and psychology->

Ignoring ethics, how will you make it permanent, given that if people's psychology and thought can be changed from one state to this state, why shouldn't it revert back to the original state, or go on to an ever worse state->

We will do that by altering people's thoughts and psychology.






Which is why we need to supply them with the knowledge that prevents them from ever developing the psychological issues that cause them to commit a severe crime.


Rests upon two assumption:

1. Psychological factors are the only cause of crime.

2. This knowledge will somehow prevent them from developing the psychological disorder. This is patently false, as people with knowledge of depression or madness may still become depressed or mad regardless of that knowledge.

On ethical grounds, it is objectionable because it singles out a group with the presumption that they are going to be criminals, and then targets all its effort to 'helping them', that is, for nothing they did, and the potential to do something, they are singled out, force to undergo a form of brainwashing, which begins by assuming they are criminals or potential criminals, segregating them from society for their perceived threat, and then sending them back after their brainwashing. You may as well say 'Statistically speaking, because minorities are more likely to commit crimes than white people, we must segregate them, imprison them, force them to undergo certain procedures to alter their mental states, and then allow them back into society where they can function in their natural roles are servants to their betters.'




Why do I need evidence to prove common sense?



Because it isn't common sense. It is an a priori assumption on your part, and does not exist until proven to exist.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


That is why we need to get help to these people that do have psychological problems.


Your argument is running around in a circle, which goes something like this:

We need to alter people's thoughts and psychology->

Ignoring ethics, how will you make it permanent, given that if people's psychology and thought can be changed from one state to this state, why shouldn't it revert back to the original state, or go on to an ever worse state->

We will do that by altering people's thoughts and psychology.


If the right knowledge is bestowed upon them, there psychology and thoughts will remain in one state for as long as they live.







Which is why we need to supply them with the knowledge that prevents them from ever developing the psychological issues that cause them to commit a severe crime.


Rests upon two assumption:

1. Psychological factors are the only cause of crime.


They are the only cause of severe crime.



2. This knowledge will somehow prevent them from developing the psychological disorder. This is patently false, as people with knowledge of depression or madness may still become depressed or mad regardless of that knowledge.


If we can't cure psychological disorders, then we must go after other psychological problems.




On ethical grounds, it is objectionable because it singles out a group with the presumption that they are going to be criminals, and then targets all its effort to 'helping them', that is, for nothing they did, and the potential to do something, they are singled out, force to undergo a form of brainwashing, which begins by assuming they are criminals or potential criminals, segregating them from society for their perceived threat, and then sending them back after their brainwashing.


What is wrong with this?




You may as well say 'Statistically speaking, because minorities are more likely to commit crimes than white people, we must segregate them, imprison them, force them to undergo certain procedures to alter their mental states, and then allow them back into society where they can function in their natural roles are servants to their betters.'


No, that would be considered racist and has nothing to do with developing the empathic consciousness.







Why do I need evidence to prove common sense?



Because it isn't common sense. It is an a priori assumption on your part, and does not exist until proven to exist.


Why wouldn't you assume this to be the case?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

lordseth23 wrote:

If the right knowledge is bestowed upon them, there psychology and thoughts will remain in one state for as long as they live.



Fallacious- if I know that I am depressed, the most I can do is be better prepared to go through with it and handle it- but being more effective in self-diagnosis and self-treatment is not the same as my thoughts and psychology remaining constant so long as I live.





They are the only cause of severe crime.


What I want it to be or what it ought to be is not what is. There is no proof for such assertion, and thus, you have no argument, only a statement.



If we can't cure psychological disorders, then we must go after other psychological problems.


What does this even mean?




What is wrong with this?



Everything.



No, that would be considered racist and has nothing to do with developing the empathic consciousness.


What you propose is mostly equivalent to a government doing this- either you accept that you are no better than a government that locks people up based upon some other arbitrary distinction from the rest of 'normal' society- like the racist government that locks minority up- and brand them all criminals, and thus fall into your own definition of 'lacking in empathy', or you had better rethink your position.




Why wouldn't you assume this to be the case?


The poverty of evidence for such a claim.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

If the right knowledge is bestowed upon them, there psychology and thoughts will remain in one state for as long as they live.



Fallacious- if I know that I am depressed, the most I can do is be better prepared to go through with it and handle it- but being more effective in self-diagnosis and self-treatment is not the same as my thoughts and psychology remaining constant so long as I live.


If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.






They are the only cause of severe crime.


What I want it to be or what it ought to be is not what is. There is no proof for such assertion, and thus, you have no argument, only a statement.


What evidence disproves this assertion?






If we can't cure psychological disorders, then we must go after other psychological problems.


What does this even mean?


That we must prevent severe crime.

If you believe that all people think about committing sexual assaults, then we need to educate all people about why sexual assault is not in their best interest. If the right information is given to everybody, then sexual assaults will never occur again because people will never think about committing sexual assaults, and they will give this information to their children so they will never think about committing sexual assault





What is wrong with this?



Everything.


Like what?





No, that would be considered racist and has nothing to do with developing the empathic consciousness.


What you propose is mostly equivalent to a government doing this- either you accept that you are no better than a government that locks people up based upon some other arbitrary distinction from the rest of 'normal' society- like the racist government that locks minority up- and brand them all criminals, and thus fall into your own definition of 'lacking in empathy', or you had better rethink your position.


We don't need to lock people up if they have the ability to permanently change themselves. Why do you assume that people cannot be permanently changed?





Why wouldn't you assume this to be the case?


The poverty of evidence for such a claim.


What evidence disproves this claim?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:

If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


No, there is no need on another person's part to cure it for you, nor is it desirable that someone else interfere with the liberty of another man, even if it is for a purported good. It is not a necessity that my depression should be cured by another, but it is desirable that I should go seek help for it to improve my own quality of life- here's the rub, I do it out of my own volition, rather than allowing another to force treatment upon me. To consider this more in depth, being an autonomous agent, having someone else force something on me that I may not desire would be a forced violation of autonomy, which I, and only I, should be able to surrender. For example, I allow certain amount of autonomy to be surrendered in order to live in a relatively free society, therefore, I accept its laws as binding on me, and accept that I have rights guaranteed to me by this government, and I support this government because it provides what I feel to be a mostly reasonable (although not totally) compromise between my natural liberty and certain necessary forfeiture of that natural liberty for social harmony. I therefore only accept a loss of autonomy when I feel it is to my advantage, to the advantage of my fellow citizen, that it is so. Now, if your proposal goes forth, it violates the natural liberty of all citizens to the degree that it is unacceptable that we should even accept it, because it singles out a group, and then deprive all liberty from them. Such violation,almost everyone but yourself, would feel to be too great an attack on our autonomy, or the autonomy of certain sectors of our society, and so, we cannot, in all honestly, give our support to that government.




What evidence disproves this assertion?


It falls onto the lot of the one who makes the claim to prove it, otherwise, we must treat it sceptically. That is to say, you make an outrageous and extraordinary claim, 'only people with psychological disorder would commit a crime', and provide no evidence, I make a less outrageous and less extraordinary claim, 'that people need not suffer from psychological disorder to commit a severe crime', which can be shown by the numerous murders done for the purpose of getting summdat money, whose perpetrators are not found to have psychological problems. Therefore, since my position is one of scepticism, my position is the default position that should be accepted unless there is proof otherwise.

Since you are an Atheist, I am sure you have heard Carl Sagan's 'Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof bit', this is generally how things are done in science- if someone has a theory, he must, but all right, prove it, rather than have his opponent, sceptical of his theory, prove their scepticism. That is why we do not make the claim that 'The Moon is made of Green Cheese', despite being impossible to falsify (we would require to scan every surface of the moon, and look into the interior to make sure that it isn't, in its core, really made of Green Cheese), because there is no evidence for it.






That we must prevent severe crime.


We must also protect the liberty of the citizenry.


If you believe that all people think about committing sexual assaults, then we need to educate all people about why sexual assault is not in their best interest. If the right information is given to everybody, then sexual assaults will never occur again because people will never think about committing sexual assaults, and they will give this information to their children so they will never think about committing sexual assault


We already have that- we have plenty of programmes decrying sexual assault and telling people it is wrong, but if people want to dominate others, if they are psychologically driven to think that they should dominate others sexually, humiliate women, etc. nothing would change that, they would still go after and sexually assault people. Our attempt at telling people, from cradle upwards, that doing drugs is bad, and that we should never, on any grounds do it, while harshly punishing offenders, does not seem to be stopping people, especially youth born after Reagan's War on Drugs, from actually doing it.





Like what?


Everything, if you don't know already, since I have been especially lucid in explaining why, then there is no hope.




We don't need to lock people up if they have the ability to permanently change themselves. Why do you assume that people cannot be permanently changed?


1. Because they are innocent until proven guilty, hence what we call 'the presumption of innocence', and thus, there is no need to punish them via segregation.

2. If people can be permanently changed, why not apply this to minorities, make them more complacent to their White betters? You are basically advocating an equivalent of segregating and brainwashing minorities to be better servants to their White 'Massah', then the same argument can be applied.

3. As said above, you have no proof to that assertion, and scepticism needs not proof.




What evidence disproves this claim?


The poverty of evidence for your own.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


No, there is no need on another person's part to cure it for you, nor is it desirable that someone else interfere with the liberty of another man, even if it is for a purported good. It is not a necessity that my depression should be cured by another, but it is desirable that I should go seek help for it to improve my own quality of life- here's the rub, I do it out of my own volition, rather than allowing another to force treatment upon me. To consider this more in depth, being an autonomous agent, having someone else force something on me that I may not desire would be a forced violation of autonomy, which I, and only I, should be able to surrender. For example, I allow certain amount of autonomy to be surrendered in order to live in a relatively free society, therefore, I accept its laws as binding on me, and accept that I have rights guaranteed to me by this government, and I support this government because it provides what I feel to be a mostly reasonable (although not totally) compromise between my natural liberty and certain necessary forfeiture of that natural liberty for social harmony. I therefore only accept a loss of autonomy when I feel it is to my advantage, to the advantage of my fellow citizen, that it is so. Now, if your proposal goes forth, it violates the natural liberty of all citizens to the degree that it is unacceptable that we should even accept it, because it singles out a group, and then deprive all liberty from them. Such violation,almost everyone but yourself, would feel to be too great an attack on our autonomy, or the autonomy of certain sectors of our society, and so, we cannot, in all honestly, give our support to that government.


What if it made everyone happier?





What evidence disproves this assertion?


It falls onto the lot of the one who makes the claim to prove it, otherwise, we must treat it sceptically. That is to say, you make an outrageous and extraordinary claim, 'only people with psychological disorder would commit a crime', and provide no evidence, I make a less outrageous and less extraordinary claim, 'that people need not suffer from psychological disorder to commit a severe crime', which can be shown by the numerous murders done for the purpose of getting summdat money, whose perpetrators are not found to have psychological problems.


What evidence proves that they did not have psychological problems?







That we must prevent severe crime.


We must also protect the liberty of the citizenry.


Not if that liberty leads to sexual assault, murder, and hate crimes.






If you believe that all people think about committing sexual assaults, then we need to educate all people about why sexual assault is not in their best interest. If the right information is given to everybody, then sexual assaults will never occur again because people will never think about committing sexual assaults, and they will give this information to their children so they will never think about committing sexual assault


We already have that- we have plenty of programmes decrying sexual assault and telling people it is wrong,


These programs are not getting enough support.




but if people want to dominate others, if they are psychologically driven to think that they should dominate others sexually, humiliate women, etc. nothing would change that, they would still go after and sexually assault people.


Then we need to change that.




Our attempt at telling people, from cradle upwards, that doing drugs is bad, and that we should never, on any grounds do it, while harshly punishing offenders, does not seem to be stopping people, especially youth born after Reagan's War on Drugs, from actually doing it.


Then we need to try harder.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/19/13



If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


So let me get this straight... You think people should have the right to kill themselves, but shouldn't have the right to be depressed? Don't some people kill themselves because they are depressed?




29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

CLarose wrote:




If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


So let me get this straight... You think people should have the right to kill themselves, but shouldn't have the right to be depressed? Don't some people kill themselves because they are depressed?




Then people should not have the right to kill themselves or be depressed.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:




If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


So let me get this straight... You think people should have the right to kill themselves, but shouldn't have the right to be depressed? Don't some people kill themselves because they are depressed?




Then people should not have the right to kill themselves or be depressed.


Why do you want to control how people feel and act? That's hardly empathetic...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:
What if it made everyone happier?


There is a possibility it would make everyone happier- unlikely as it is- it is an actuality that it would violate someone's autonomy and liberty.






What evidence proves that they did not have psychological problems?


What evidence is there that they do?

He that claims that there are fairies must prove to he that doubts the existence of the fay-folks.




Not if that liberty leads to sexual assault, murder, and hate crimes.


No, even if it does lead to sexual assault, murder, and hate crimes, because it is the same liberty that allows black people to sit where ever they want on the bus, allow Communists to hold rallies, and you to post up such stupidity on the internet.




These programs are not getting enough support.


Which is bullshit, because the government spends millions (if not billions) on ineffective programmes as these, when it could have been better spent on things like improving American Education, on subsidizing College Students, improving Health Care, etc.




Then we need to change that.


Because all attempt heretofore to force people to think a certain way has yet to succeed.




Then we need to try harder.


Or we can just legalise drugs and allow the government to regulate it.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

CLarose wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:




If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


So let me get this straight... You think people should have the right to kill themselves, but shouldn't have the right to be depressed? Don't some people kill themselves because they are depressed?




Then people should not have the right to kill themselves or be depressed.


Why do you want to control how people feel and act? That's hardly empathetic...


Because I want them to be happy.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:
What if it made everyone happier?


There is a possibility it would make everyone happier- unlikely as it is- it is an actuality that it would violate someone's autonomy and liberty.


How is it unlikely?







What evidence proves that they did not have psychological problems?


What evidence is there that they do?

He that claims that there are fairies must prove to he that doubts the existence of the fay-folks.


The evidence is in the fact that they committed a severe crime.






Not if that liberty leads to sexual assault, murder, and hate crimes.


No, even if it does lead to sexual assault, murder, and hate crimes, because it is the same liberty that allows black people to sit where ever they want on the bus, allow Communists to hold rallies, and you to post up such stupidity on the internet.


Which is why we need to uphold some liberty, but not all liberty.






These programs are not getting enough support.


Which is bullshit, because the government spends millions (if not billions) on ineffective programmes as these, when it could have been better spent on things like improving American Education, on subsidizing College Students, improving Health Care, etc.


Then we need to make these programs effective.





Then we need to change that.


Because all attempt heretofore to force people to think a certain way has yet to succeed.


That doesn't mean we should stop trying.






Then we need to try harder.


Or we can just legalise drugs and allow the government to regulate it.


Only if that successfully prevents severe crimes.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:




If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


So let me get this straight... You think people should have the right to kill themselves, but shouldn't have the right to be depressed? Don't some people kill themselves because they are depressed?




Then people should not have the right to kill themselves or be depressed.


Why do you want to control how people feel and act? That's hardly empathetic...


Because I want them to be happy.


You can't force people to be happy. You ask why are people unempathetic, yet here you are with your unempathetic belief system. You don't want to understand why people are the way they are, you just want them to be the way you want them to be. I think that's more for your happiness than anyone else's.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.