Sure is a lot of ignorance in regards to mental illness going on in this thread.
I mean, why even argue with people who don't understand/know what they're talking about. It's like an exercise in education every post. Their positions are highly untenable because of this. The onus is really on them to educate themselves and then come back to this discussion or area of discourse.
Next time you make a post, say something instead of half assedly throwing out insults to people trying to engage in discussion in the thread. Instead of saying we're uneducated, show us what makes you so much more educated than us.
There isn't any point though. Like I said, when someone is debating with others and they really have a limited understanding of a large part of the subject matter it's up to them to be open minded and seek out further knowledge. I'm sure others and myself could go on and provide you with insight in regards to mental illness, but you and others honestly don't seem open to understanding beyond what you are currently aware of.
I just think it would be prudent for Quid and others to cease arguing with people who are clearly ignorant about mental illness. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but It doesn't even seem like some people are trying to engage in honest debate/discussion here. It seems like some people just want to be right and are close minded in their approach to the discourse.
Sure is a lot of ignorance in regards to mental illness going on in this thread.
I mean, why even argue with people who don't understand/know what they're talking about. It's like an exercise in education every post. Their positions are highly untenable because of this. The onus is really on them to educate themselves and then come back to this discussion or area of discourse.
Next time you make a post, say something instead of half assedly throwing out insults to people trying to engage in discussion in the thread. Instead of saying we're uneducated, show us what makes you so much more educated than us.
There's no point though. Like I said, when someone is debating with others and they really have a limited understanding of a large part of the subject matter it's up to them to be open minded and seek out further knowledge. I'm sure others and myself could go on and provide you with insight in regards to mental illness, but you and others honestly don't seem open to understanding beyond what you are currently aware of.
I just think it would be prudent for Quid and others to cease arguing with people who are clearly ignorant about mental illness. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but It doesn't even seem like some people are trying to engage in honest debate/discussion here. It seems like some people just want to be right and are close minded in their approach to the discourse.
When has anybody in this thread been closed to any sort of education on mental illness? No one is making a good argument for or against.. well anything. Hell, Quid has been asking one-liner questions while completely generalizing any statement we make. Oh, you think Loughner should be executed..? Well, then you must be saying every mentally ill person must be executed regardless if said mentally-ill patient committed multiple murder in cold blood.
Puh-Leeze. If any standard of proper debate and discourse is being demonstrated here, it's not from Quid or anybody else in this thread.
What have we gleaned from Charles Manson? The unibomber? How much "science" is really taking place in these mental institutions (or prisons, since I am sure this is where Loughner will spend the rest of his life)? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "very little". Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.
Only in so much as a single subject can contribute. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Just because a single individual isn't revolutionizing a scientific field doesn't mean they aren't valuable data.
Also you're shifting goal posts now. You were claiming there was nothing to be learned.
(I've only read like half of this thread so forgive me and my stupid opinions if they've already been aired)
Someone earlier was talking about the "minority position" of dudes and dudettes who believe that capital punishment is absolutely never justified even if you have incontrovertible evidence of the suspect's crimes. Well, hello from one of the dudes from that position.
Could someone tell me, without all this "You're defending a child murderer!/Want to execute the handicapped!" nonsense, precisely what executing Loughner would accomplish? I mean, it seems to me that apart from sating a few vengeance-boners and maybe possibly apparently providing closure for some of the people involved, that just sticking the dude in a psych institution for the rest of his life to either die or improve benefits us a lot more than just sticking a needle in his arm.
(PS. not my place to tell you guys how to say what you want to say, but earlier someone was talking about "shooting him in some back-alley" and "sending his body off to a ditch". I mean, bro, I get that this is an emotional topic for you, but that kind of rhetoric just makes you seem bloodthirsty to silly bleeding-heart types like me).
You're asking what executing him accomplishes, and I'm saying shooting him and burying him in a ditch accomplishes death at almost zero cost. It's not about anything other than effectiveness. Going through the "humane" death sentence costs hundreds of thousands. Keeping him in prison for life costs hundreds of thousands. I've already explained pretty clearly that any attempt to get valuable info from him will be in vain, since that's the only justifiable reason to keep him alive. I can't comprehend how anyone thinks psycho analyzing him can effectively stop others like him from doing something like this. Someone who has the will in them to ever do this in their life won't be helped by therapists talking to them. The best outcome is that after years and years of treatment, Loughner feels differently, but that's irrelivant because he'll never be a member of society again.
But then what does his death accomplish? Why is Loughner becoming a corpse a desirable outcome here? It seems to me we either kill the guy and get another body for the pile, or put him in a psych ward where it is at least possible he might do some good for society before he assumes room temperature.
(It seems to me I keep saying "it seems to me". It seems to me that that's a bit weird).
What have we gleaned from Charles Manson? The unibomber? How much "science" is really taking place in these mental institutions (or prisons, since I am sure this is where Loughner will spend the rest of his life)? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "very little". Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.
Only in so much as a single subject can contribute. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Just because a single individual isn't revolutionizing a scientific field doesn't mean they aren't valuable data.
Also you're shifting goal posts now. You were claiming there was nothing to be learned.
Well, not too many people in our society have committed a crime as heinous as Loughner has. Why spare him if he is just another point in a very large set of data?
What have we gleaned from Charles Manson? The unibomber? How much "science" is really taking place in these mental institutions (or prisons, since I am sure this is where Loughner will spend the rest of his life)? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "very little". Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.
Only in so much as a single subject can contribute. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Just because a single individual isn't revolutionizing a scientific field doesn't mean they aren't valuable data.
Also you're shifting goal posts now. You were claiming there was nothing to be learned.
Well, not too many people in our society have committed a crime as heinous as Loughner has. Why spare him if he is just another point in a very large set of data?
Besides the fact that the murdering of anyone is horrible, be it one or six people, because it's the only way to learn about people who would actually commit those crimes.
Quid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
What have we gleaned from Charles Manson? The unibomber? How much "science" is really taking place in these mental institutions (or prisons, since I am sure this is where Loughner will spend the rest of his life)? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "very little". Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.
Only in so much as a single subject can contribute. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Just because a single individual isn't revolutionizing a scientific field doesn't mean they aren't valuable data.
Also you're shifting goal posts now. You were claiming there was nothing to be learned.
Well, not too many people in our society have committed a crime as heinous as Loughner has. Why spare him if he is just another point in a very large set of data?
Because the set isn't actually all that large, and the better we understand, the more we can eliminate idiocy about mental illness?
What have we gleaned from Charles Manson? The unibomber? How much "science" is really taking place in these mental institutions (or prisons, since I am sure this is where Loughner will spend the rest of his life)? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "very little". Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.
Only in so much as a single subject can contribute. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Just because a single individual isn't revolutionizing a scientific field doesn't mean they aren't valuable data.
Also you're shifting goal posts now. You were claiming there was nothing to be learned.
Well, not too many people in our society have committed a crime as heinous as Loughner has. Why spare him if he is just another point in a very large set of data?
Because the set isn't actually all that large, and the better we understand, the more we can eliminate idiocy about mental illness?
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
But why is this the wrong argument to take? You aren't making a very good argument here, besides "you are ignorant for not wanting to preserve this precious piece of human BRAIN".
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
But why is this the wrong argument to take? You aren't making a very good argument here, besides "you are ignorant for not wanting to preserve this precious piece of human BRAIN".
Because it's blatantly false. Even you have backed off of it and moved to there being "very little" to learn from individuals.
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
But why is this the wrong argument to take? You aren't making a very good argument here, besides "you are ignorant for not wanting to preserve this precious piece of human BRAIN".
Because it's blatantly false. Even you have backed off of it and moved to there being "very little" to learn from individuals.
I never said that nothing can be "learned" from a case such as this.
Avoiding the execution of innocents is obviously very important. What I want and am essentially arguing for won't ever happen anyway, which would be exceptions to the system in cases similar to this. Kill him quickly and cheaply without worrying about appeals or any of that, since his guilt is clear. But like I said that probably won't ever happen.
That Loughner killed those people is clear. It is unclear whether or not he is legally insane. So even this cut and dried case is far from cut and dried. That's why our system, as imperfect as it is, is far better than taking him out back and asking him to tell us about the rabbits.
Saving money is not a reason to diminish our commitment to fair, just trials.
I hate to quote myself, but there still hasn't been a response to this, just a lot of chirping about irrelevant stuff.
Because it's an absolute declaring that science can't possibly advance any further on this particular subject. Which is foolish.
Oh bullshit. Give me some evidence that this case can provide some scientific insight. That's all I'm asking and you can't do that.
We could have a better understanding of how the brain works. Did you seriously just suggest that we have hit the limits of any sort of science? That's ridiculous.
I'm sure there are a number of people that would like to study his brain chemistry, talk to him about his thought processes, etc in an effort to better figure out who might also be in a similar state of mind. As well as attempt treatment so as to better help others like him.
And again, even you agree he could provide more information that can be used. At the top of this very page no less.
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
Besides the fact that it'd be virtually impossible to not learn anything, even if it's things that help reinforce someone's theory or practice and no something new, the reasoning you're putting forward means we shouldn't bother to try and understand anyone so mentally ill they kill people without remorse or concern for the consequences. Which is a terribly short sighted view.
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
It's posts like these that emphasize what I was saying earlier.
Lucid on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
There's also the bit where people just say "He's crazy!" as though that's all that can be said about his mental state. There's a whole lot of nuance to mental illness, and a whole lot of people veer closer to the "fuck it imma kill some people" line than many would like to believe. Public understanding of post-partum depression, for example, is absolutely atrocious.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
It's only justice if he's legally sane. If he's legally insane, then executing him without due process would be unjust. Which is why we have to allow for the possibility that he may be not guilty because he could not separate fantasy from reality.
sanstodo on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
Besides the fact that it'd be virtually impossible to not learn anything, even if it's things that help reinforce someone's theory or practice and no something new, the reasoning you're putting forward means we shouldn't bother to try and understand anyone so mentally ill they kill people without remorse or concern for the consequences. Which is a terribly short sighted view.
Really, Quid, what can possibly be gleaned from understanding what drives people to kill? Next you'll probably suggest we should waste resources trying to predict when and where hurricanes are going to strike.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
Killing him isn't justice. There is no justice for what he did.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
Besides the fact that it'd be virtually impossible to not learn anything, even if it's things that help reinforce someone's theory or practice and no something new, the reasoning you're putting forward means we shouldn't bother to try and understand anyone so mentally ill they kill people without remorse or concern for the consequences. Which is a terribly short sighted view.
Really, Quid, what can possibly be gleaned from understanding what drives people to kill? Next you'll probably suggest we should waste resources trying to predict when and where hurricanes are going to strike.
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
It's only justice if he's legally sane. If he's legally insane, then executing him without due process would be unjust. Which is why we have to allow for the possibility that he may be not guilty because he could not separate fantasy from reality.
Executing him without due process is unjust either way.
Prove to me that he would be a beneficial character study in any journal of science and I will concede my point. How do I know his ass will just rot wherever he ends up being as opposed to actually receiving some sort of scientific attention?
These accusations of me being against any new type of science is, quite frankly, laughable. Give me some references people! Shit! Don't just tell me that we can use him for science, but give me some concrete fucking references here of case studies done on psychopaths on people of Loughner's scale and any kind of relevent scientific breakthroughs gleaned from the case-studies.
But you can't prove that we'd learn anything from him for sure. What can be proven, however, is that he murdered a bunch of people. You would deny justice simply due to a what-if scenario.
It's only justice if he's legally sane. If he's legally insane, then executing him without due process would be unjust. Which is why we have to allow for the possibility that he may be not guilty because he could not separate fantasy from reality.
Executing him without due process is unjust either way.
That's why his idea of shooting him and dumping him in a ditch is unjust. Trying to scaffold it a bit, hoping for a response.
sanstodo on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2011
How about we don't kill him because it does nothing and we as a society should be beyond such barbaric 'eye for an eye' vengeance?
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
How about we don't kill him because it does nothing and we as a society should be beyond such barbaric 'eye for an eye' vengeance?
Maybe it should be left up to the victims.
The legal system is not people's personal vengeance machine.
And maybe committing mass murder is not one person's way of lashing out at society and equivocally being fed and supported for the rest of his natural life by the tax paying citizen. I just don't think being sent to what amounts to a college dorm room for the rest of his life is an adequate punishment for what this guy did.
Demerdar on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
I absolutely despise the idea that the victim's family gets a say in the punishment. Heck, I'm uncomfortable with them being able to view the execution.
Also, a college dorm room? Really.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
How about we don't kill him because it does nothing and we as a society should be beyond such barbaric 'eye for an eye' vengeance?
Maybe it should be left up to the victims.
The legal system is not people's personal vengeance machine.
And maybe committing mass murder is not one person's way of lashing out at society and equivocally being fed and supported for the rest of his natural life by the tax paying citizen. I just don't think being sent to what amounts to a college dorm room for the rest of his life is an adequate punishment for what this guy did.
Yeah, prison is just like college dorm life. It's awesome all concrete walls and shivs and purno. I really don't know why anyone WOULDN'T want to live there.
There has also been no mention of the victims here. Why shouldn't it be up to them? I think the sense of closure (whatever it may be, execution, life in jail, etc..) can be beneficial to the victims here, who are not responsible for Loughner's actions but are feeling the consequences of them. Such as say.. losing your little girl while picking out what kind of poptarts she wants that weekin due to a senseless crime? I can't even imagine what these people are feeling, or what they would do to Loughner if given 10 minutes in a room alone with him.
Demerdar on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
But why is this the wrong argument to take? You aren't making a very good argument here, besides "you are ignorant for not wanting to preserve this precious piece of human BRAIN".
Well, perhaps if we were to study him, we could tell you exactly what benefits studying him provided.
Posts
I just think it would be prudent for Quid and others to cease arguing with people who are clearly ignorant about mental illness. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but It doesn't even seem like some people are trying to engage in honest debate/discussion here. It seems like some people just want to be right and are close minded in their approach to the discourse.
When has anybody in this thread been closed to any sort of education on mental illness? No one is making a good argument for or against.. well anything. Hell, Quid has been asking one-liner questions while completely generalizing any statement we make. Oh, you think Loughner should be executed..? Well, then you must be saying every mentally ill person must be executed regardless if said mentally-ill patient committed multiple murder in cold blood.
Puh-Leeze. If any standard of proper debate and discourse is being demonstrated here, it's not from Quid or anybody else in this thread.
Only in so much as a single subject can contribute. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Just because a single individual isn't revolutionizing a scientific field doesn't mean they aren't valuable data.
Also you're shifting goal posts now. You were claiming there was nothing to be learned.
But then what does his death accomplish? Why is Loughner becoming a corpse a desirable outcome here? It seems to me we either kill the guy and get another body for the pile, or put him in a psych ward where it is at least possible he might do some good for society before he assumes room temperature.
(It seems to me I keep saying "it seems to me". It seems to me that that's a bit weird).
Well, not too many people in our society have committed a crime as heinous as Loughner has. Why spare him if he is just another point in a very large set of data?
Besides the fact that the murdering of anyone is horrible, be it one or six people, because it's the only way to learn about people who would actually commit those crimes.
Because the set isn't actually all that large, and the better we understand, the more we can eliminate idiocy about mental illness?
And what idiocy of mental illness are we speaking of?
Well for one, the idea that people like Loughner can never be understood or predicted and have absolutely nothing of value that could benefit the world.
But why is this the wrong argument to take? You aren't making a very good argument here, besides "you are ignorant for not wanting to preserve this precious piece of human BRAIN".
Because it's blatantly false. Even you have backed off of it and moved to there being "very little" to learn from individuals.
I never said that nothing can be "learned" from a case such as this.
please answer my question.
I hate to quote myself, but there still hasn't been a response to this, just a lot of chirping about irrelevant stuff.
Oh bullshit. Give me some evidence that this case can provide some scientific insight. That's all I'm asking and you can't do that.
We could have a better understanding of how the brain works. Did you seriously just suggest that we have hit the limits of any sort of science? That's ridiculous.
We've been over that.
And again, even you agree he could provide more information that can be used. At the top of this very page no less.
Besides the fact that it'd be virtually impossible to not learn anything, even if it's things that help reinforce someone's theory or practice and no something new, the reasoning you're putting forward means we shouldn't bother to try and understand anyone so mentally ill they kill people without remorse or concern for the consequences. Which is a terribly short sighted view.
There's also the bit where people just say "He's crazy!" as though that's all that can be said about his mental state. There's a whole lot of nuance to mental illness, and a whole lot of people veer closer to the "fuck it imma kill some people" line than many would like to believe. Public understanding of post-partum depression, for example, is absolutely atrocious.
It's only justice if he's legally sane. If he's legally insane, then executing him without due process would be unjust. Which is why we have to allow for the possibility that he may be not guilty because he could not separate fantasy from reality.
Really, Quid, what can possibly be gleaned from understanding what drives people to kill? Next you'll probably suggest we should waste resources trying to predict when and where hurricanes are going to strike.
Killing him isn't justice. There is no justice for what he did.
Or volcano monitoring.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Executing him without due process is unjust either way.
These accusations of me being against any new type of science is, quite frankly, laughable. Give me some references people! Shit! Don't just tell me that we can use him for science, but give me some concrete fucking references here of case studies done on psychopaths on people of Loughner's scale and any kind of relevent scientific breakthroughs gleaned from the case-studies.
That's why his idea of shooting him and dumping him in a ditch is unjust. Trying to scaffold it a bit, hoping for a response.
Maybe it should be left up to the victims.
That's pretty much who it should never be left up to
The legal system is not people's personal vengeance machine.
And maybe committing mass murder is not one person's way of lashing out at society and equivocally being fed and supported for the rest of his natural life by the tax paying citizen. I just don't think being sent to what amounts to a college dorm room for the rest of his life is an adequate punishment for what this guy did.
Also, a college dorm room? Really.
Yeah, prison is just like college dorm life. It's awesome all concrete walls and shivs and purno. I really don't know why anyone WOULDN'T want to live there.
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PRIVY TO THE WHIMS OF MOB MENTALITY.
Well, perhaps if we were to study him, we could tell you exactly what benefits studying him provided.