Bleeding heart liberals

JemyM · January 28, 2012

Vii Zafira said:
It is easy to make mistakes when you are not betting your own life or freedom on being right.

Not daring to do mistakes is in itself a disorder.

Vii Zafira · January 28, 2012

Making mistakes with someone else's life it's easy.

The question is, why don't psychologists make mistakes with their own?

If your choices hurt or kill someone innocent, then be hurt or killed yourself. It is only fair.

Consider it "Duel by champion"

Otherwise you are just a coward.

Which is what most pseudo-intellectuals are, in any case. So don't feel too bad about it, it's just your nature.

Kz3r0 · January 28, 2012

Todos son maricones con los culos de los otros.
Hope that is correct, Spanish is not my language.

Vii Zafira · January 28, 2012

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. :lol:

That was a surprise.

Your spanish's surprisingly good. The only thingie I would say is that while "de los otros" is gramatically correct, it is better to use "de otros" in that particular case.

:glomp:

JemyM · January 28, 2012

Vii Zafira said:
Making mistakes with someone else's life it's easy.

The question is, why don't psychologists make mistakes with their own?

If your choices hurt or kill someone innocent, then be hurt or killed yourself. It is only fair.

Consider it "Duel by champion"

Otherwise you are just a coward.

Which is what most pseudo-intellectuals are, in any case. So don't feel too bad about it, it's just your nature.

Question is if your standard breeds irresponsibility. If no one dares to try to help someone in order to avoid being held responsible, what kind of world would we get?

What makes a psychologist different than a police officer? Can a police officer make mistakes with someones life? Judge? Jury? Parent? You?

Kz3r0 · January 28, 2012

JemyM said:
Question is if your standard breeds irresponsibility. If no one dares to try to help someone in order to avoid being held responsible, what kind of world would we get?

Dude, get down from the pedestal, you are not helping anyone, you are a willing accomplice of violent criminals.
But maybe it flatters you ego 'helping' the scum of the earth, I mean, sympathizing with the victims is too banal, you are too cool for that.

Edit:
You just showed your bias there, helping instead of professionally addressing a possible menace to others .
Nice mindset.

JemyM · January 28, 2012

Kz3r0 said:
Dude, get down from the pedestal, you are not helping anyone, you are a willing accomplice of violent criminals.
But maybe it flatters you ego 'helping' the scum of the earth, I mean, sympathizing with the victims is too banal, you are too cool for that.

I asked you before; do you believe yourself to be a reasonable person and do you believe you are using reason in the posts you written here?

Kz3r0 · January 28, 2012

See the edit.
You reasoning until now has only been intellectual arrogance, at best.

Patrick Bateman · January 28, 2012

JemyM said:
Both would have gained from the crime not being committed in the first place. I call the punishment "cleaning up". It's not a solution, but what you do after a failure.

"Rehabilitation" does not come into equation here. As I've repeatedly stated (and so did Vii), you are welcome to study the criminal, while his punishment is being administered. In fact, in such a situation, invasive research methods that would normally not be used can and should be used if necessary.

The primary reason you do this is to give faith to the system ("the system supports the innocent"). The people who are actually disencouraged from doing wrong is a rather small number though. As crime is often irrational so one should not assume that criminals calculate risk vs reward. Unfortunally people who think rationally cannot think irrationally and live with the illusion that their rational capacity equals the capacity of a potential criminal. This lead them to support "fear of punishment" as a solution even if it according to the numbers doesn't work as well as other solutions.

While there are doubts into the deterrent capacity of permanent punishment (only in the cases where criminal acts are indeed irrational, with rational people it stands), other foundations of permanent punishment stand strong.

In fact, let's assume that a criminal commits a violent crime where the act can be classified as irrational behaviour.

It is in nature of the irrational that it cannot be predicted. Only possible attempt to predict whether certain irrational act will happen or not is through induction (based on similar acts done in the past).

Given that, it is impossible to conclude that the criminal won't repeat the act once he is released. In fact, based on inductive reasoning, he is likely to repeat it.

Hence, attempting to rehabilitate a criminal whose act can be described as irrational is futile.

Yes. It would be a cardinal error.

Then his response is rational. You admit that there is a possibility of the repeating. You are willing to take a gamble with other people's lives as stakes. You accept the responsibility for the results of that gamble. Responsibility implies accountability, which implies proportionate punishment.

I believe the psychologist community are more aware of the many layers in this issue than most of society can imagine.

Unfortunately, I know of a few opposite examples.

Vii Zafira said:
I will believe that when Psychologists start commiting sepukku in a park every time a misjudgement of theirs causes someone suffering.

It is easy to make mistakes when you are not betting your own life or freedom on being right.

This. Everyone is accountable.

Kz3r0 said:
Todos son maricones con los culos de los otros.
Hope that is correct, Spanish is not my language.

JemyM said:
Question is if your standard breeds irresponsibility. If no one dares to try to help someone in order to avoid being held responsible, what kind of world would we get?

The crux of the matter is that by trying to "help" a perpetrator you are just contributing to suffering of his past and future victims. You are not help, you are hindrance.

What makes a psychologist different than a police officer? Can a police officer make mistakes with someones life? Judge? Jury? Parent? You?

Individual action implies individual accountability. Everyone who contributes to the decision of releasing such a criminal is guilty of facilitating the crime the criminal will commit. Everyone who contributes to the decision that an attempt at rehabilitation should be made is guilty of diverting the resources from the ones that need help in this situation , i.e. the victims and from the procedures that would create the environment with fewer occurences of violent crime (e.g. improving an education system).

Vii Zafira · January 28, 2012

@ JemyM

Don't make me laugh, little guy. You have used no arguments at all in this particular thread, only opinions. If you want us to actually address you as someone rational who deserves "reason" start showing formal arguments.

Question is if your standard breeds irresponsibility. If no one dares to try to help someone in order to avoid being held responsible, what kind of world would we get?

Ad consequentiam. Try again.

Then, it is your argument which breeds irresponsibility as you are suggesting those who cause others pain through their actions, direct or indirect, and their incompetence should not be held accountable of that pain. Therefore, you are saying they shouldn't be held responsible for it.

Drop psychology, get logic. ASAP.

People like you, they give academic pursuits a bad name.

JemyM said:
What makes a psychologist different than a police officer? Can a police officer make mistakes with someones life? Judge? Jury? Parent? You?

Psychologists are pseudo-scientists while police officers are armed agents of the state.

Then police officers, the police force, and parents can be held accountable by law.

Finally, if we go by the idea of Law being nothing but how the state calls its own violence everyone can be held accountable as long as you are a good enough shot and do not advertise your intentions previously.

JemyM said:
The primary reason you do this is to give faith to the system ("the system supports the innocent"). The people who are actually disencouraged from doing wrong is a rather small number though.

You must be a blissful little person.

The certainty of final and extreme punishment does work as a deterrent. I.E: Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent. It isn't that punishment does not work in normal society but that the punishment is both uncertain and mild. The more horrible, brutal, and shocking the punishment the higher its power as a deterrent.

How do you think "law" is maintained in those corners of society where not even the police dares threading without air support? My, my. Your nature as someone who never went outside the ivory tower just came to view.

Where I come from we call guys like you "pansies."

JemyM · January 28, 2012

Patrick Bateman said:
"Rehabilitation" does not come into equation here. As I've repeatedly stated (and so did Vii), you are welcome to study the criminal, while his punishment is being administered. In fact, in such a situation, invasive research methods that would normally not be used can and should be used if necessary.

Punishment is part of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is part of punishment.

There are a couple of factors that needs to be accounted for;
* Punishment cannot be greater than the crime committed
* There's a post-punishment situation
* Punishing someone who can't grasp punishment is beating a dead horse
* Lack of autonomy is a mitigating factor (doing crime while being forced by ones company, doing crime while living within a dysfunctional family etc)

Patrick Bateman said:
While there are doubts into the deterrent capacity of permanent punishment, other foundations of permanent punishment stand strong.
In fact, let's assume that a criminal commits a violent crime where the act can be classified as irrational behaviour.
It is in nature of the irrational that it cannot be predicted. Only possible attempt to predict whether certain irrational act will happen or not is through induction (based on similar acts done in the past).
Given that, it is impossible to conclude that the criminal won't repeat the act once he is released. In fact, based on inductive reasoning, he is likely to repeat it.
Hence, attempting to rehabilitate a criminal whose act can be described as irrational is futile.

Cause of irrationality vary. There are a couple of theories behind what cause the irrational condition and a couple of solutions. For instance, a person may always be violent after drinking alcohol or too much alcohol. Knowing this, there are something to work with. There might be no solution for some.

Patrick Bateman said:
Then his response is rational. You admit that there is a possibility of the repeating. You are willing to take a gamble with other people's lives as stakes. You accept the responsibility for the results of that gamble. Responsibility implies accountability, which implies proportionate punishment.

I believe you misjudge possibility theory here. There are a possibility of repeated behavior and there is a possibility of you doing a crime. A possibility isn't enough, we need at least a moderate possibility before we act.

Patrick Bateman said:
Unfortunately, I know of a few opposite examples.

I know of a few Americans who eat carrots, it doesn't mean American eat carrots. Anecdotes are worth nothing.

Patrick Bateman said:
The crux of the matter is that by trying to "help" a perpetrator you are just contributing to suffering of his past and future victims. You are not help, you are hindrance.

Why? You seem to believe I advocate rehabilitation instead of punishment, like it was a dichotomy. There's a time after doing time. If we are to look people up forever and never try to make them work in society again, then we are going to waste a lot of money.

Patrick Bateman said:
Individual action implies individual accountability. Everyone who contributes to the decision of releasing such a criminal is guilty of facilitating the crime the criminal will commit. Everyone who contributes to the decision that an attempt at rehabilitation should be made is guilty of diverting the resources from the ones that need help in this situation , i.e. the victims and from the procedures that would create the environment with fewer occurences of violent crime (e.g. improving an education system).

Am I responsible for the crimes you may commit in your life (there's a possibility you will) by not shooting you now?

JemyM · January 28, 2012

Vii Zafira said:
@ JemyM

I have no clue what you are talking about. It seems you argue with someone else, because most of the time you argue against things I haven't said and positions I do not hold. I do not have time right now to figure out where you are getting this stuff.

Patrick Bateman · January 28, 2012

JemyM said:
* Punishment cannot be greater than the crime committed

Crimes and punishment we are discussing all fit this criterion.

There's a post-punishment situation

Punishment ends with the criminal's life.

Punishing someone who can't grasp punishment is beating a dead horse

The roles of enforcing accountability, protecting the people by removing the criminal and giving closure to the victims do not depend on whether the criminal can grasp punishment or not. However, the "cannot grasp punishment" concept reeks of avoiding accountability. Anyone with self-awareness can grasp punishment.

* Lack of autonomy is a mitigating factor (doing crime while being forced by ones company, doing crime while living within a dysfunctional family etc)

No. By virtue of our free will, we are fully responsible for our actions.

Cause of irrationality vary. There are a couple of theories behind what cause the irrational condition and a couple of solutions. For instance, a person may always be violent after drinking alcohol or too much alcohol. Knowing this, there are something to work with. There might be no solution for some.

As long as there is self-awareness, every act is an act of free will. Alcohol may influence one's neurotransmitter profile, but it cannot cause the person to lose self awareness before affecting physical abilities of that person to the point of being unable to perform a violent act.

I believe you misjudge possibility theory here. There are a possibility of repeated behavior and there is a possibility of you doing a crime. A possibility isn't enough, we need at least a moderate possibility before we act.

There is a finite high probability, which can easily be calculated by enumerating the examples. Bear in mind that each new example is a new victim, i.e. irreparable damage.

I know of a few Americans who eat carrots, it doesn't mean American eat carrots. Anecdotes are worth nothing.

Their worth is in that they demonstrate:

- failability of psychologists in such cases is finite
- psychologists in those cases haven't been held accountable by the society

It is enough of a motivation not to blindly trust psychologists when it comes to such cases (which was the aim to demonstrate).

The problem is that consequences of blind trust in those cases were fatal.

Why? You seem to believe I advocate rehabilitation instead of punishment, like it was a dichotomy. There's a time after doing time.

It is a dichotomy. Permanency of the punishment should reflect the permanency of the victim's status as a victim. In the cases we are discussing, punishment is to be permanent, which excludes rehabilitation.

If we are to look people up forever and never try to make them work in society again, then we are going to waste a lot of money.

Oh, but they'll work (read previous posts).

Am I responsible for the crimes you may commit in your life (there's a possibility you will) by not shooting you now?

1. Do you have knowledge that leads you to believe there is a significant probability of me committing that type of crime? Like, the fact that I've already committed such crimes, or the fact that I have told you that I will commit such crimes in a psychology session?

If yes, then you should perform every step necessary to remove me from the society This may be informing the authorities, informing the potential victims and the public and exercising your own authority if you have it (e.g. immediate committment to a maximum security mental institution for the 2nd case).

If this doesn't work, then:

2. Do you have the means and are able to create the opportunity to prevent me from doing the crime, and is the only way to do this by shooting me?

If the answer to all questions is yes, and you don't act, and I commit a violent crime that you were able to stop, then you are indeed responsible for facilitating my crime. By your inaction you have allowed an evil act.

However, there is an additional distinction between this example and the case of you contributing to setting an already incarcereted criminal loose. In this example, I am an ctive threat from the start and you failed to neutralize me. In cases we are discussing, the threat is neutralized at the start (by incarceration) and you are the one who contributed to activating the threat. So, your crime is qualitatively worse.

Vii Zafira · January 28, 2012

@ JemyM

JemyM said:
It seems you argue with someone else, because most of the time you argue against things I haven't said and positions I do not hold.

Don't try that one, little guy.

#1

You said my point of view breeds irresponsibility. I first denounced your argument itself as Ad Consequentiam, and then argued it is your point which is irresponsible.

Where's the discussing things you did not say?

#2

You asked why psychologists should be held to different standards than cops. I answered. Your question implied you believed policemen and parents to be unaccountable. That's wrong, so I answered both from the perspective of Law and from the perspective of Vigilantism.

How is that discussing something you did not say?

#3

The part I quoted before answering was just the first couple of lines of a long paragraph of you defending the idea of punishment not being enough of a deterrent because many criminals are irrational. Which means you are not only delusional but also ignorant, and I explained why in the answer.

In which way is that not related to what you wrote?

Now, how about, say, some arguments, for a change? I know psychologists can't really into arguments and facts by virtue of being pseudo scientists at best, but even you should be able to come with something better than random declarations and amateur maneuvers.

zahratustra · January 28, 2012

Vii Zafira said:
@ JemyM

Don't make me laugh, little guy. You have used no arguments at all in this particular thread, only opinions. If you want us to actually address you as someone rational who deserves "reason" start showing formal arguments.

And where does this condescension is coming from? "I know it all little man and I am willing to dispense my wisdom onto you so sit down, listen and take notes"? Jemy never pretended that he has all the answer and yet you seems to be arrogant enough to think that you do?

Vii Zafira · January 28, 2012

@ Zahratustra

I don't need to have all the answers. I only need to be confident in my own ability to destroy most of the arguments he will be able to build based on those flimsy excuses of an opinion, and that I am.

I don't have "truth." I have arguments. He doesn't, and all he has done is try to dodge the points and use the kind of basic debate maneuvers not even a kindergartener would try to use with a straight face while passing his own opinions as facts without anything to stand on. That's all I have to know before being condescending to him.

And given so far he has shown to deserve nothing but condescension in all the threads where we have been at opposing sides of the debate, why should I act otherwise towards him?

I don't really dislike him, but his smug attitude while spouting arguments that wouldn't impress a child, if spouting arguments at all, is kind of bothersome.

JemyM · January 28, 2012

Patrick Bateman said:
The roles of enforcing accountability, protecting the people by removing the criminal and giving closure to the victims do not depend on whether the criminal can grasp punishment or not. However, the "cannot grasp punishment" concept reeks of avoiding accountability. Anyone with self-awareness can grasp punishment.

Law is a science in itself. Victim is not the same as lawmaker and these rarely match. Sometimes the victim want a greater punishment, sometimes a smaller. Law can thus not only follow a victims emotions but must follow it's own internal logic.

And no, self-awareness isn't enough to grasp punishment.

Patrick Bateman said:
No. By virtue of our free will, we are fully responsible for our actions. As long as there is self-awareness, every act is an act of free will.

Free will is a religious concept that can be left there.

Patrick Bateman said:
Alcohol may influence one's neurotransmitter profile, but it cannot cause the person to lose self awareness before affecting physical abilities of that person to the point of being unable to perform a violent act.

States alter the mind and learning to know oneself includes learning how one function in different states. I do not know what age you are but this is a part of maturing and being an adult.

Patrick Bateman said:
Their worth is in that they demonstrate:
- failability of psychologists in such cases is finite
- psychologists in those cases haven't been held accountable by the society
It is enough of a motivation not to blindly trust psychologists when it comes to such cases (which was the aim to demonstrate).
The problem is that consequences of blind trust in those cases were fatal.

It might not be the psychologists fault in the first place. There are many confounding variables in a such scenario. Including the blind trust. It might also be that the justice system didn't work at all in that case.

Patrick Bateman said:
It is a dichotomy. Permanency of the punishment should reflect the permanency of the victim's status as a victim. In the cases we are discussing, punishment is to be permanent, which excludes rehabilitation.

You know that things like prison costs alot of money right? You use many logical expressions "finite", "permanent" etc like this was some kind of math or mindgame. There's a reality too and reality must look at utility, money spent and if there are better solutions.

Patrick Bateman said:
Oh, but they'll work (read previous posts).

It was pointed out to you that forced labour doesn't work.

Patrick Bateman said:
1. Do you have knowledge that leads you to believe there is a significant probability of me committing that type of crime? Like, the fact that I've already committed such crimes, or the fact that I have told you that I will commit such crimes in a psychology session?

If yes, then you should perform every step necessary to remove me from the society This may be informing the authorities, informing the potential victims and the public and exercising your own authority if you have it (e.g. immediate committment to a maximum security mental institution for the 2nd case).

My theory might be wrong.

Patrick Bateman said:
If this doesn't work, then:

2. Do you have the means and are able to create the opportunity to prevent me from doing the crime, and is the only way to do this by shooting me?

If the answer to all questions is yes, and you don't act, and I commit a violent crime that you were able to stop, then you are indeed responsible for facilitating my crime. By your inaction you have allowed an evil act.

Acting upon a wrong theory is wrong even if it was right at that point.

Patrick Bateman said:
However, there is an additional distinction between this example and the case of you contributing to setting an already incarcereted criminal loose. In this example, I am an ctive threat from the start and you failed to neutralize me. In cases we are discussing, the threat is neutralized at the start (by incarceration) and you are the one who contributed to activating the threat. So, your crime is qualitatively worse.

You seem to have a very sharp distinction between criminal and non criminal. I do not see that to be a useful way of seeing things, rather I see what have happened and where to go from there.

zahratustra · January 28, 2012

Vii Zafira said:
@ Zahratustra

I don't need to have all the answers. I only need to be confident in my own ability to destroy most of the arguments he will be able to build based on those flimsy excuses of an opinion, and that I am.

And saying that "Psychologists are pseudo-scientists while police officers are armed agents of the state." is supposed to destroy his arguments? You do realize that many psychologists work for (and cooperate with) police and judicial system and that psychology/police isn't a dichotomy?

But, most importantly, since you have said that you have arguments, can you explain why "reformative" approach advocated by Jemy seems to work better than your "punitive" one?

dteowner · January 28, 2012

It doesn't seem to work better, Z, as I've told you a hundred times. You're falsely assuming that the people and the situation are identical between countries.

Patrick Bateman · January 28, 2012

JemyM said:
Sometimes the victim want a greater punishment, sometimes a smaller. Law can thus not only follow a victims emotions but must follow it's own internal logic.

Law is made for the people. The law must give maximum (permanent) penalty, so that there is no greater possible punishment that the victim would want. The victim may forgive if it is victim's will to do so, but law is not a subject to emotion. Making a choice with fatal and permanent consequences for someone else should result in equivalent permanent consequences for the one who is punished.

JemyM said:
Free will is a religious concept that can be left there.

This has to be trolling.

Free will is the reality of controling one's actions (body motions) and foreseeing the consequences of the actions that are (to be) performed. Everyone's actions are the result of their will and, when it comes to sentient beings, your will is your own. Hence, free will. I am writing this post because I want to. I am responsible for my actions and can and should be held accountable for them.

The fact that the concept has been used by philosophy and different religions has no bearing on its relevance. I recommend reading Schrodinger's lecture on the subject to everyone: http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

States alter the mind and learning to know oneself includes learning how one function in different states. I do not know what age you are but this is a part of maturing and being an adult.

I don't see the relevance. Whatever one's state is, ability to perform a willing action has the ability to decide to perform the action. Willing decision, responsibility, accountability.

It might not be the psychologists fault in the first place. There are many confounding variables in a such scenario. Including the blind trust. It might also be that the justice system didn't work at all in that case.

On the contrary, it is the fault of the psychologists and of other participants in making the decision with fatal consequences. You are trying to shift or divide the responsibility. The system is made of individuals, and each individual has to face consequences of his own actions, regardless of others. Failure of the psychologist to recommend incarceration in that case constitutes his responsibility. Failure of the police to act decisively on the harrassment charges constitute the responsibility of the police officers involved. Failure of the judge to issue detention constitutes his responsibility and so on. It is easy to say "such is the system" to alleviate one's own responsibility. Sounds like "we were just following orders, just like everyone else". Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

You know that things like prison costs alot of money right? You use many logical expressions "finite", "permanent" etc like this was some kind of math or mindgame. There's a reality too and reality must look at utility, money spent and if there are better solutions.

It was pointed out to you that forced labour doesn't work.

Providing adequate room and nutrition is cheap compared to the labour extracted from the prisoner during his lifetime.

Forced labour does work, in spite of the opinion which was presented but not backed up by facts (no evidence that Soviet forced labour was cost ineffective). There are numerous examples through history (e.g. whole civilizations built on slavery), including some recent ones: e.g. chain gangs built a significant part of the US infrastructure in a very cost effective manner.

My theory might be wrong.

Acting upon a wrong theory is wrong even if it was right at that point.

If a person expressed his intent to commit a violent crime in a convincing manner, there is a pretty good probability that you are right.

Not acting on your theory entails the worst possible consequences in this case (murder of an innocent person vs. incapacitating a person with obvious criminal intent). Using game theory principles, the only rational decision would be stopping the potential criminal, even allowing for the case you were wrong. Of course, in reality one has plenty of subtle and less subtle methods to achieve this.

In addition, you have not addressed the objections that your example is
a) unrealistic, because it disregards other methods of dealing with the problem
b) categorically different from the example where you set an already convicted criminal free (not stopping that which is already active vs. activating that which was neutralized).

You have failed to demonstrate why returning such a criminal into society should even be contemplated and have not addressed many stated objections to that course of action.

But, most importantly, since you have said that you have arguments, can you explain why "reformative" approach advocated by Jemy seems to work better than your "punitive" one?

You have stated that "reformative" approach as an opinion, unsupported by facts. I have already challenged the data that you'd probably try to produce (if such data even exists) to back up that opinion in advance. So, demonstrate the causation between the "reformative" approach and success in combating violent crime or STFU. So, we have already been over this. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Bleeding heart liberals

Okay, now roll sanity.

Oh desire!

Arcane Trickster

Oh desire!

Okay, now roll sanity.

Arcane Trickster

Okay, now roll sanity.

Arcane Trickster

Vice President

Oh desire!

Okay, now roll sanity.

Okay, now roll sanity.

Vice President

Oh desire!

SasqWatch

Oh desire!

Okay, now roll sanity.

SasqWatch

Shoegazer

Vice President