DescentBB

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:I disagree. If someone is unable to be helped, then I think they should be studied. We need to find out what it is that causes people to become or be "incurable."

someday you'll realize that some people are just Evil

I cannot think of a truly evil person. Most people described as "evil" are closer to misguided, stupid, or ignorant, I think.

then I think you need to read up on your History a little more. I can point to a few for you.
David Berkowitz,
Jeffrey Dahlmer.

Wiki wrote:According to Peck, an evil person[8][9]:

Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection
Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception
Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets, scapegoating others while appearing normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective") [10]
Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others
Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion") [11]
Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim
Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

WOW I think that described Casey Anthony

I understand that Null, and you shouldn't change your mind until you convince yourself it's truth. There was a time when I had determined to do nothing if ever assaulted for my beliefs. Not so now. In the multitude of counselors there is safety and a wise man seeketh advice. I never had a problem asking ANYONE for knowledge because no one can gloat that he knows more than another, considering the source of knowledge itself

CUDA wrote:David Berkowitz,
Jeffrey Dahlmer.

Those people were not "evil", they were mentally unstable and needed help.

Your wiki quote also sounds like a description of mental illness, not "evil". Sounds like antisocial personality disorder to me, though I am not a psychologist.

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:David Berkowitz,
Jeffrey Dahlmer.

Those people were not "evil", they were mentally unstable and needed help.

and of course your a clinical Psychologist and are an expert in diagnosing such cases right? because

Elizabeth Radcliffe, Ph.D., Executive Director, The American Philosophical Association
Throughout human history, it is obvious that there are evil people. The philosopher Rousseau thought society corrupts people, who are naturally good. However, I believe that we develop good or evil characters through our choices. While individual dispositions and environmental factors influence our choices, we can only make sense of our lives by rising above these features. We develop vices, or virtues, by choosing. The more lies we tell, the easier it becomes; and demeaning others becomes easier the more we disrespect them. Those who develop a habit of choosing badly may lose all sense of the good, and this is what we call an evil character.

Your wiki quote also sounds like a description of mental illness, not "evil". Sounds like antisocial personality disorder to me, though I am not a psychologist.

e·vil
   [ee-vuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

You guys are working with different definitions again.

Try clarifying whether your application of "evil" to a person means "does evil things" or "is inherently morally corrupt".

You can identify any plant by the fruit it produces. Call it evil, mental whatever. When that guy is running at you with intent in his eyes, you will know the difference immediately. Fact is they are a danger to everyone else who is restraining themselves. How would you go about giving personal attention to the masses of murderer's and rapists...etc this world contains? Well, also taking into account my view, that only violent offenders should be locked away and this very determinate on the circumstances. But lets define violent as something heinous and seemingly unforgivable.

Foil wrote:You guys are working with different definitions again.

Try clarifying whether your application of "evil" to a person means "does evil things" or "is inherently morally corrupt".

I am assuming a definition of "inherantly morally corrupt." I do not believe such person exist.

HITLER - evil

Pure and simple.

CDN_Merlin wrote:HITLER - evil

Pure and simple.

No, Hitler was a stupid, ignorant, and mentally ill (the man had Parkinson's and syphilis) man with delusions of grandeur who led the German people (equally stupid and ignorant) along with false promises of a better future and fear-based rhetoric.

Lol, all true. God save us!!

I think null needs some "help".

Null, it seems to me that you lack life experience, so I can only imagine where you do get your opinions on these matters. I'd like to know how you expect to help someone when you don't even have more than a basic, textbook understanding of their problem. I strongly believe that the textbook explanation itself is usually a combination of naive, convenient, and self-serving. Classifications such as "psychotic" and the like leave much to be desired when it comes to a true understanding of the problem, never mind the solution, in my opinion. One of the main problems with so-called experts in human behavior is pride, if you ask me, and I think it causes them to really miss the mark.

Hitler was certainly a lot more than "stupid, ignorant, and mentally ill". You don't almost conquer a continent with these qualifications. To try to fit such a man into a ridiculous and simplistic box as that is a great naivety at best. You don't even come close to understanding a man like Hitler. I would define "evil", basically, as directly/willfully/purposefully causing harm. It can be as relatively small a thing as a child wanting to inflict pain on an animal. Desiring to wipe out a people who have done nothing wrong is certainly evil.

For your information, Null, my notions of justice on this topic have nothing to do with vengeance. Justice is a complicated subject that we have an innate sensitivity to. If a person at once ignores or reasons away this sensitivity (or lacks the wisdom to understand it) and determines to define it, they are in a really stupid situation. If you know too much that "ain't so", it can really retard your ability to logically deal with reality.

By the way when Flip called you "naive and gullible", those are not names and it follows that there was no name calling taking place. Sometimes feelings are hurt when people are candid with their opinions and you're being a [now this would have been a name]. Man up.

Can we seriously not discuss this issue like rational adults? Must everyone resort to name calling and personal attacks?

Again, it was a description, not an insult and I apologized for wording it too harshly. Your skin will get thicker and you will learn to laugh off an insult and then go for the throat

flip wrote:Again, it was a description, not an insult and I apologized for wording it too harshly. Your skin will get thicker and you will learn to laugh off an insult and then go for the throat

You misunderstand me. I am pointing out ad hominem not because I am actually hurt by words on a computer screen, but because it is not productive behavior in a discussion.

I wasn't suggesting hurt feelings. I was saying the moment you make it an issue, IT becomes the issue and all is lost?

Learn the difference between adult banter, and blatant insults.

flip wrote:I wasn't suggesting hurt feelings. I was saying the moment you make it an issue, IT becomes the issue and all is lost?

How else am I to respond to a post which has no content other than "null is dumb"? (I am not talking about your post.)

Your talking about Spidey right? Seemed like a friendly jab at your beliefs is all. On top of that, who gives a ★■◆● what Spidey, me or anyone else thinks? I listened to what you said then explained why I thought it was naive. At that point I'm either right or wrong and you can either choose to agree or disagree and state a differing viewpoint. I look at it like this, first saying I have a deep respect and love for life, but there are 2 types of people in this world. Those telling people what to do and those being told what to do. bull★■◆● is easily seen and easily dismissed, so if your gonna try and convince others of something you believe in, you better be damn sure your right. And nobody will be near as tolerant as these guys on this board in my experience.

I will say this. Your idea of "studying" them scares me shitless. Much more so than 23 hours solitary confinement. How would you like to be confined for the rest of your life AND people fuckin with you the whole times. They are still human and since some studies even go to show that "studyin" makes them worse it's better to just leave them to their selves. Could be they might can think themselves through it. If left alone.

I think what really pissed him off was your use of "your" in place of "you're", but he didn't want to come right out and say it. ;P

Yeah, I didn't even touch the notion of "studying" these people, but that ain't right either.

Hey, what can I say, I'm too lazy to spellcheck LOL

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Null, it seems to me that you lack life experience, so I can only imagine where you do get your opinions on these matters. I'd like to know how you expect to help someone when you don't even have more than a basic, textbook understanding of their problem. I strongly believe that the textbook explanation itself is usually a combination of naive, convenient, and self-serving. Classifications such as "psychotic" and the like leave much to be desired when it comes to a true understanding of the problem, never mind the solution, in my opinion. One of the main problems with so-called experts in human behavior is pride, if you ask me, and I think it causes them to really miss the mark.

So here in one paragraph, we have your usual cute spiel of stating that your opponent lacks some sort of undefined "life experience," and we have a flat dismissal of entire fields of study that you quite frankly know nothing about. Man it's great to have a rational discussion.

My statement about life experience was absolutely true, as was the following statement. If you have an obvious lack of life experience together with some strong opinions on life there is clearly an imbalance (and the life experience I'm talking about is defined by the topic, for everyone who's paying attention). What's cute is that you protest what I said instead of answering it. There's nothing irrational about largely dismissing psychology in this particular area without an in-depth understanding of its workings. I have enough exposure to its conclusions, and more times than not I find them wanting.

flip wrote:I will say this. Your idea of "studying" them scares me shitless. Much more so than 23 hours solitary confinement. How would you like to be confined for the rest of your life AND people fuckin with you the whole times. They are still human and since some studies even go to show that "studyin" makes them worse it's better to just leave them to their selves. Could be they might can think themselves through it. If left alone.

A study does not have to be inhumane or monstrous. I'm not talking about something like physically poking around inside the brain, I'm talking about talking to them, for the most part. Things like brain scans, etc. Nothing needlessly invasive or abusive.

that's insane. some people choose to make bad choices. some people LIKE making choices that are harmful to others. "listening" to them and "studying" them will not change or prevent others from doing the same. you would need to Psych test every human out there to even remotely try to prevent or understand similar actions from happening again. and making excuses for people that make those choices is dangerous for a society as a whole. this country has Laws. Violate those laws and you KNOWINGLY are liable for the decisions you make. makeing excuses like he has a mental illness is Crap at best, EVERYONE has some form of mental illness. Most of us don't make Choices that are Harmful to others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger

read up on this man and tell me that his choices didn't put him where he's at.

there is a reason why there are FBI departments such as the Behavioral Analysis Unit. they Analise the "Criminal Minds" so to speak. but Justice still needs to be done for the welfare of society and that Justice is usually in the form of Punishment.

CUDA wrote:Justice still needs to be done for the welfare of society and that Justice is usually in the form of Punishment.

What welfare does punitive action guarantee?

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Justice still needs to be done for the welfare of society and that Justice is usually in the form of Punishment.

What welfare does punitive action guarantee?

It prevents society from sliding into a Mad Max-esch anarchy.

null0010 wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:HITLER - evil

Pure and simple.

No, Hitler was a stupid, ignorant, and mentally ill man with delusions of grandeur who led the German people (equally stupid and ignorant) along with false promises of a better future and fear-based rhetoric.

Sounds like Obama

null0010 wrote:

Foil wrote:You guys are working with different definitions again.

Try clarifying whether your application of "evil" to a person means "does evil things" or "is inherently morally corrupt".

I am assuming a definition of "inherantly morally corrupt." I do not believe such person exist.

How do you separate the two? First explain what "Inherently" means in the context of being morally corrupt.

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Justice still needs to be done for the welfare of society and that Justice is usually in the form of Punishment.

What welfare does punitive action guarantee?

it guarantee's that the Laws of the land are enforced. because if you are not going to enforce a law why bother having a law.

are you having trouble with that concept?

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Justice still needs to be done for the welfare of society and that Justice is usually in the form of Punishment.

What welfare does punitive action guarantee?

it guarantee's that the Laws of the land are enforced. because if you are not going to enforce a law why bother having a law.

are you having trouble with that concept?

Why must laws be enforced through punishment?

You actually think a long stream of rhetorical questions is a discussion?

null0010 wrote: why must laws be enforced through punishment?

First off flip is correct. your ongoing rhetorical questioning is boorish

second I suppose the next time you get a speeding ticket we shouldn't fine you (punishment) we should just study you so we can understand why you violated the law.

Null, I hope you never have kids. The way you talk about why punish people who break laws, your kids would become terrors in no time if you don't set boundries on them. Same with adults. If you don't have repercussions to actions, people will ALWAYS push the limit.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not saying that there should be no action taken to combat criminal behavior and lawlessness. I am saying different action should be taken. What is more beneficial to society?

1. Locking people away (punishment)

2. Figuring out why the law was broken and rectifying the problem (rehabilitation)

It would also be interesting to determine which option is cheaper.

why not both??

null0010 wrote:

Why must laws be enforced through punishment?

Why shouldn't they be punished?

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Why must laws be enforced through punishment?

Why shouldn't they be punished?

Punishment breeds contempt for society and its laws.

So? Lawlessness is already contempt for society and its laws. It's revenue neutral