|
| Thread: somebodies darling. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 10, 2010 06:55 PM |
|
|
You shouldn't dismiss it, just because you don't like it. The guy's work is pretty impressive. His name is Kent Kiehl, he's a Prof at the NM Uni. The website lists his publications.
http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/lg_kiehl.html#pubs
If you are interested, you can go on from there or even contact him. This is pretty serious work.
Of course, as Wolfsburg is right to point out - and of course this is an open question -, there is the question of what is cause and what is effect. Is childhood experience affecting brain density?
Might be.
Still, what I wanted to point out is the fact, that serial killers are NOT like you and me. There ARE differences. I find that important, because it simply explains a lot, for example, why we are absolutely unable to imagine how someone can do what those people do.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted June 10, 2010 10:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You shouldn't dismiss it, just because you don't like it.
Please JJ, you know me enough by now to really assume I would dismiss evidence out of convenience.
Btw, quite an impressive body of publications. The patients were indeed tested via MRI (magnetic ressonance), which although non-invasive still lacks the histologic value of a biopsy. (This would allow for instance to say if the brain-structure itself is deformed or if just the functions are "disabled").
Pretty impressive nonetheless. I hope his works find echo in the international community. It makes me specially curious to see the pattern difference between psychopaths and schyzofrenics of the antisocial kind (one is aware of the laws and doesn't care while the other is completely disconnected from the universe of values).
Even in the US, in states where death penalty is enforced, they should seek legal permission to compare brain-MRI results with the tissue samples post mortem. This would allow this awful practice to offer at least some degree of contribution to science.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 10, 2010 10:54 PM |
|
|
erm, guys... this isn't about the killers psychology, the OP was about how everyone in the world is loved.
just a quick, erm pointing out, here.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted June 10, 2010 11:36 PM |
|
|
You are right. Sorry there, Bixie. Sometimes we get carried away by the subject "serial/incurable offenders"
I shall respect the thread.
Indeed almost everyone was loved at some point in their lives.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2010 11:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fauch:
What's wrong with trying to improve humanity biologically? Transhumanism isn't anything like forced eugenics.
what do you mean? improvements can be reached through training. if you try to find the formula of genius, or whatever of that kind, what is most likely is it will cost a lots of resources (natural resources)
if you are talking about birth controls, kinda like hitler tried to create the perfect race, the problem is you will lose lots of genes in the process and hinder the adaptation potential of humans.
in the whole that just isn't useful, some proofs shows that humans have a huge potential, but most of the time, because of their living conditions, they just can't develop it.
you can also look at the paranormal field, all those strange abilities we should all have but we have learned to forget because science thought it was bullsnow. (but now they begin to realise that it was maybe true)
Quote:
It makes me specially curious to see the pattern difference between psychopaths and schyzofrenics of the antissocial kind (one is aware of the laws and doesn't care while the other is completely disconnected from the universe of values).
I don't care about the laws. am I a psychopath?
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 08:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't care about the laws. am I a psychopath?
A main characteristic of psychopaths is selfishness. They are very self centered, which actually motivates them to stomp rights and laws.
Now, are you a psychopath? Possibly a bit, yes. Depends on how far are you willing to break laws and wether you feel guilt or not afterwards.
Disobeying the house rules to piss off mom and repeated drunk-driving are two completely different universes.
But we better stop before Bixie kicks me out of the discussion!
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 08:34 AM |
|
|
I think it's the obligation and duty of any good citizen to break the law if the law is stupid. Blindly following laws is called being a sheep.
I follow laws if it's convenient and the law makes sense. Otherwise, screw the law.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 08:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I follow laws if it's convenient
It's great when murderers and thieves follow that guideline, isn't it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 08:44 AM |
|
|
But laws against murder and thievery make sense.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 02:00 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:09, 11 Jun 2010.
|
hum, I'm not much self-centered. I have a problem with laws that deprives people of liberty without good reason and force them to act like sheeps.
and currently, a characteristic of laws (at least in France) is they are said to be good for your selfishness. (err, your security...)
you are afraid of terrorism... err I mean, you don't like muslims? come on, let's make a law to piss them off (because everyone knows that every muslim is a terrorist and every terrorist is a muslim)
Quote:
I think it's the obligation and duty of any good citizen to break the law if the law is stupid
that must be from Gandhi or someone like that
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 03:30 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:34, 11 Jun 2010.
|
@Bin
Quote:
I follow laws if it's convenient and the law makes sense. Otherwise, screw the law.
You should follow the law regardless of whether it makes sense or not. And if it doesn't make sense, you should work to change the law, rather than just disregarding it. If everyone followed only the laws that they, personally, thought made sense, we'd have anarchy. There's no point in having government if laws were "optional" and following them was up to personal discretion. Thankfully, we (most of us) live in a society where citizens have avenues to change the law other than violence.
EDIT:
And as for JJ's post, I find it rather condescending of him to suggest that I can't separate my personal prejudices from a critical analysis of a scientific study. Sorry buddy but as a scientist I have to do that on a daily basis. And in any case, I don't understand why you assume I would find the conclusions of this person's studies on serial killers inconvenient or "not likeable". I don't have anything invested in it no matter which way the cards fall.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2010 06:35 PM |
|
|
Sorry, if I stepped on anybody's toes. Wasn't my intention.
I apologize, if I came over condscending.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 05:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But laws against murder and thievery make sense.
To you. They might not make sense to murderers and thieves.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 06:00 PM |
|
|
Hobbes-theory kills progress for the sake of excessive consistency. There have been powerful methods to cause reform outside of the legal system that can't be ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
Where is the line drawn? It is undefinable. Violence vs nonviolence is (often) a good determiner, as well as fully exhausting legal methods first and foremost.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 06:12 PM |
|
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 06:24 PM |
|
|
There are numerous historical cases where a population has refused to pay taxes, among other things. A lot of the most dramatic reform happens as a result illegal activity, and then is later formalized as the new law.
I wouldn't consider not paying certain taxes to the IRS (for example) to be unethical, but I do it anyway because the consequences of not paying aren't worth it. Force is what makes me obedient, not mutual agreement.
Political theory is what shapes law rather than law shaping political theory. That sometimes means going outside of the law.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So it's okay not to pay taxes, then?
Better: Are the taxes reasonable, and are they spent in a reasonable way?
If the population pays 1 10th of everything to some greedy lord just to pay it to the greedy lord, are it worth it? You might say that its worth the "law" that is being upheld by the people you pay it to, but on the other side: What is there is a better option?
Even better: Are the proposal of a better system reasonable, are the people ready for this?
What makes a revolution what it is, are the rapid change and its the majority that is behind it. The opposite is a coup, where a small group highjacks the position of power.
The position of both are subjective, but four a revolution it got a better chance of being "for the greater good" unless the people behind it was doing it for the wrong reason for the wrong goals, which might be okay in the end.
And then we got passive changes(passing laws, taking the sweet time), vs rapid changes(revolution & coups & etc), weither or not they in the end are beneficial.
So if you are paying taxes:
*Are they reasonable(tax level) compared to what they are spent on?
*Are they wisely spent?
*Is a revolution worth the effort, and possible backfire in time?
*Is a passive change rapid enough to get the job done, and will it work?
So, what is your argument for not paying tax?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 07:19 PM |
|
|
I'm against not paying taxes. If you have a disagreement with the law, try to change it. Don't just disregard it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 07:27 PM |
|
|
Except for being the more powerful side, then what gives a given group of person, through the power given by the majority, the right to coerce the individual?
Any given group of people can in theory (if there was no superior power) claim some land as a country and can then call themselves for this countries population/society. Then a majority of this group can select a smaller group of which they grant power. However, except for being the one in power, what gives the elected group the right to coerce upon every single individual, independent of what they want/choose/decided?
I have nothing against a given area of land is called Denmark. What I have something against is that a little group of people, can through the power of majority, decide that I should do something I don't want to (be part of the military) and either they'll lock me in, or I'll participate, and to prevent this, it's not the people who wants to coerce me that have to do the convincing, no I have to convince others not to coerce me, because I have to change the system.
A system should always have a base upon no coercion, if coercion should ever be done, it must be the coercer that have the responsibility of convincing, for every single case.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 07:35 PM |
|
|
OhforfSake: While that is true, it is also the current system. The current system is in charge because that is what a long chain of separate events reached as a current conclusion.
So, what change would be for the better after your vision and what would make it worse than today's system? And being as you are a Dane, I take it you want the change to be done over a stable process taking a few years, no?
And as for a answer to your question: The people who got elected or pushed trough has the power to coerce their fellow men, quite simply because that is what the point of the system is. It works the way it works, and it got its perks and quirks, but it is the current way.
But using that logic, the same applies to anything in practice.
So lets turn the question: Would a system without coercion work? Would it not just descend into some form of anarchy?
____________
|
|
|
|
