savages

[shira]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

These are effects, not "causes."

And I disagree. There's no epidemic of sociopathic people. Last I looked, violent crime was down. Yes, this particular incident is pretty shocking. But shocking events have been happening every year for as long as I can remember.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blanghorst

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

These are effects, not "causes."

And I disagree. There's no epidemic of sociopathic people. Last I looked, violent crime was down. Yes, this particular incident is pretty shocking. But shocking events have been happening every year for as long as I can remember.

If these are effects, then what are their causes?

(hazarding a probable guess. . .I'm gonna say poor parenting.)

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Isn't ironic that you have a thread full of people eager to murder a group of murderers for murdering someone?

They are the limp-dicked, pseudo-macho crowd, so filled with the sense of their own worthlessness and powerlessness that they compensate with blood-lust fantasies with which they pollute our threads.

They fancy themselves righteous defenders of justice, but hey clearly have no respect for the rule of law.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society.

So how exactly does the death penalty serve the greater good of society? It's more expensive, and it's not shown to be a deterrent. How is society served again?

Why do we put down vicious dogs rather than keeping them locked up in the dog pound until they die naturally? Answer that question and I think you'll have your answer. I never made any argument for it being a deterrent so I don't know where you're getting that from. As for it being more expensive. . .that's only because we drag the process out so long and keep people on death row for so many years before actually carrying out the sentence I suspect but do you have any proof or evidence to back your claim or are we supposed to just believe what you say when you say it's more expensive because "everyone knows this" or something?
We should have the option to simply get rid of people who are convicted of the most heinous and premeditated and barbaric acts of human depravity and murder simply because they have no more worth to society than a dog who bites the mailman. For surely if we can take a life of a creature simply for biting the mailman we are within our rights to take the life of a person who brutally, randomly, and intentionally murders another human being in the most grotesque and nightmarish of ways. Not out of revenge, not out of justice, not for any reason other than to simply be rid of them forever. You see, I don't place any special significance on the fact that it's a human being as opposed to a vicious dog that we're disposing of if the act that the person committed was deemed heinous enough. . .like say, breaking into some random person's house in the middle of the night and hacking them up with a machete in their sleep for NO apparent reason whatsoever. If the perpetrator is found guilty and convicted of this act, how is society served by keeping somebody like this around is what you should be asking. I think you have the burden of proof backwards here. I simply do not share the misguided belief that ALL human life should be held sacred regardless of how harmful they are to society. Sometimes you just have to cull the herd, throw out the trash so to speak. The only difference between disposing of somebody like this and putting down a vicious dog is that I'm more likely to feel remorse for the dog because. . .well. . .he's a dog doing what dogs are naturally prone to do. And don't think that I would relish the chance to see these murderers publicly executed or anything like that. I believe it should be done as I said before, quickly, quietly, painlessly, and privately with little to no publicity. The same way we put down vicious dogs. Normally when I hear in the news that some child raping murderer has been given lethal injection my reaction is not to say, "Good. Fucking scum got what he deserved. Good riddance." Though sadly that is the reaction most people probably have. My reaction is more along the lines of, "What needed doing is done. So be it." But I take no perverse joy in the news as many people probably do. But nor do I feel sorrow.

Sorry, people aren't dogs. Additionally, the process is slow and expensive because we have to get it right - there's no reversing death. The mere fact several people on death row have been exonerated should tell you that mistakes can and are made at the trial phase. Heck, Texas has already killed at least one innocent man - how many more do you want to kill to feed your bloodlust?
I agree that society can and should be protected from those who've proven themselves unworthy to dwell amongst us, but a life sentence without parole accomplish that same goal well enough.

My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blanghorst

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

These are effects, not "causes."

And I disagree. There's no epidemic of sociopathic people. Last I looked, violent crime was down. Yes, this particular incident is pretty shocking. But shocking events have been happening every year for as long as I can remember.

If these are effects, then what are their causes?

If you're asking why some people are sociopaths, then I refer you to Wiki:

The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known, but biological or genetic factors may play a role. Brain structure deregulation, specifically within the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, plays an important contribution.

If the parent of an individual has had the disorder, that individual has a greater chance of having the disorder. A number of environmental factors in the childhood home, school, and community may also contribute to the disorder. Robins (1966) found an increased incidence of sociopathic characteristics and alcoholism in the fathers of individuals with antisocial personality disorder. He found that, within such a family, males had an increased incidence of ASPD, whereas females tended to show an increased incidence of somatization disorder instead.

Bowlby (1944) saw a connection between antisocial personality disorder and maternal deprivation in the first five years of life. Glueck and Glueck (1968) saw reasons to believe that the mothers of children who developed this personality disorder usually did not discipline their children and showed little affection towards them. But it is also important to point out that correlation does not imply causation.

Adoption studies show that both genetic and environmental factors can contribute to the development of the disorder. These studies have also shown that genetic factors are more important for adults with the disorder, while environmental factors are more important in antisocial children

Currently, genetic and environmental factors are thought to contribute to the organic causes of the disorder, namely, deregulation of the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. The prefrontal lobes are responsible for forming goals and objectives, coordinating skills, and evaluating our actions. The OFC of the prefrontal lobes has connections to the amygdala, is part of the limbic system, and is specifically noted for regulating and modulating stress/arousal responses, as well as response-reversal.

Antisocial individuals, because of an impaired amygdala show impaired initial response learning. Additionally, when psychopaths and amygdalar-lesioned patients are presented with a peripheral emotional image (e.g. a picture of a corpse, or the sound of a crying baby) while completing a simple task, their performance remains relatively unaffected. They show impaired recognition of, and reaction to, fearful facial and vocal affect.

In general, the combination of an inattentiveness to emotionally charged stimuli (whether presented in full view or as a peripheral distraction) as well as an inability to shift attention to an alternative route of reward (and thus, avoid punishment) can account for much of a APD individual?s deviant behavior. They do not notice emotion and are unable to empathize?and thus feel unaffected when their actions have detrimental effects on other people.

They also continue to commit acts of crime or violence long after the rewards have stopped and the punishment has begun (e.g. repeat offenders who have been incarcerated multiple times). They also are quick to display aggressive and impulsive behavior. This reactive antisocial aggression is perhaps in part a result of elevated levels of frustration experienced when they are unable to modify their behavior in the ever-changing environment

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

What's that got to do with what I said? :roll:

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blanghorst

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

These are effects, not "causes."

And I disagree. There's no epidemic of sociopathic people. Last I looked, violent crime was down. Yes, this particular incident is pretty shocking. But shocking events have been happening every year for as long as I can remember.

If these are effects, then what are their causes?

If you're asking why some people are sociopaths, then I refer you to Wiki:

I wasn't asking why some people are sociopaths. I was just asking for you to clarify the causes of the things you had labeled as effects. You didn't really say what they were the effects of. I'll take your reply to mean that you are saying these are some of the symptoms demonstrated by people who are diagnosed with ASPD. Ironically the first line of the article you quoted said "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" so you aren't really making a very strong argument for your case.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

What's that got to do with what I said? :roll:

You accused me of having bloodlust. I'm just defending myself. I don't know what about the point of view I expressed in any of my previous posts led you to believe that I'm some kind of vengeful maniac bent on seeing "bad people" die or something. Nobody ever deserves to die at the hand of another. But it's not a matter of "deserving" for me. It's more a matter of necessity. But you seem to have clearly labeled me in your mind as someone possessed of some kind of bloodlust merely because I do not hold the misguided belief it is NEVER ok to execute another human being. You are making the illogical leap that because I am ok with putting some certain people down when they have been proven to have committed the most atrocious of acts which are beyond societal redemption that I would somehow enjoy the spectacle when I have stated time and again that I take absolutely no joy in hearing that somebody has received the death penalty. But, sometimes in life you gotta muck the stalls. It's a dirty job nobody likes but it's necessary from time to time. The death sentence is just another one of those things to me and should be applied only when there exist the most heinous of circumstances in the commission of a crime and the guilt can be established beyond shadow of a doubt. You don't seem to understand though that the willingness to do an act does not equate to the enjoyment of carrying out that act or seeing that act done.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blanghorst

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

These are effects, not "causes."

And I disagree. There's no epidemic of sociopathic people. Last I looked, violent crime was down. Yes, this particular incident is pretty shocking. But shocking events have been happening every year for as long as I can remember.

If these are effects, then what are their causes?

If you're asking why some people are sociopaths, then I refer you to Wiki:

I wasn't asking why some people are sociopaths. I was just asking for you to clarify the causes of the things you had labeled as effects. You didn't really say what they were the effects of. I'll take your reply to mean that you are saying these are some of the symptoms demonstrated by people who are diagnosed with ASPD. Ironically the first line of the article you quoted said "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" so you aren't really making a very strong argument for your case.

Those effects are among the symptoms of ASPD, so when you asked for their causes, you were in effect asking what causes ASPD. Here's the wiki list of ASPD symptoms (I've bolded the ones most closely related to the items on the list above):

Symptoms

Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:

* Persistent lying or stealing
* Superficial charm
* Apparent lack of remorse or empathy; inability to care about hurting others
* Inability to keep jobs or stay in school
* Impulsivity and/or recklessnes
* Lack of realistic, long-term goals ? an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals
* Inability to make or keep friends, or maintain relationships such as marriage
* Poor behavioral controls ? expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
* Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlement
* A persistent agitated or depressed feeling (dysphoria)
* A history of childhood conduct disorders
* Recurring difficulties with the law
* Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
* Substance abuse
* Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
* Inability to tolerate boredom
* Disregard for the safety of self or others
* Persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social rules, obligations, and norms
* Difficulties with authority figures

The "no sense of right or wrong" is related to sociopath's lawbreaking in general, though I don't think it's because they don't KNOW the difference; it's because they don't care.

Edit: Edited to removed some typos.

 

[OutHouse]

jesus christ. that poor man. I could not imagine what the is going through right now.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blanghorst

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

These are effects, not "causes."

And I disagree. There's no epidemic of sociopathic people. Last I looked, violent crime was down. Yes, this particular incident is pretty shocking. But shocking events have been happening every year for as long as I can remember.

If these are effects, then what are their causes?

If you're asking why some people are sociopaths, then I refer you to Wiki:

I wasn't asking why some people are sociopaths. I was just asking for you to clarify the causes of the things you had labeled as effects. You didn't really say what they were the effects of. I'll take your reply to mean that you are saying these are some of the symptoms demonstrated by people who are diagnosed with ASPD. Ironically the first line of the article you quoted said "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" so you aren't really making a very strong argument for your case.

Those effects are among the symptoms of ASPD, so when you asked for their causes, you were in effect asking what causes ASPD. Here's the wiki list of ASPD symptoms (I've bolded the ones most closely related to the items on the list above):

Symptoms

Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:

snipped for brevity. . .

Edit: Edited to removed some typos.

Right I understand we've established that the symptoms demonstrated are common among those diagnosed with ASPD but what we still have not established is the cause of ASPD itself because the first line of the wiki article reads "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" which is basically like saying these symptoms can be attributed to some unknown cause. If an accurate causality link cannot be established then it really isn't accurate to label the symptoms as symptoms until you have positively identified a true cause. But whatever the case. . .I get your meaning. ASPD is what commonly leads to the kinds of behaviors demonstrated here but whatever the cause of ASPD itself is we only have some probable causes but nothing concrete.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

What's that got to do with what I said? :roll:

You accused me of having bloodlust. I'm just defending myself. I don't know what about the point of view I expressed in any of my previous posts led you to believe that I'm some kind of vengeful maniac bent on seeing "bad people" die or something. Nobody ever deserves to die at the hand of another. But it's not a matter of "deserving" for me. It's more a matter of necessity.

And why is it a 'necessity'?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Right I understand we've established that the symptoms demonstrated are common among those diagnosed with ASPD but what we still have not established is the cause of ASPD itself because the first line of the wiki article reads "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" which is basically like saying these symptoms can be attributed to some unknown cause. If an accurate causality link cannot be established then it really isn't accurate to label the symptoms as symptoms until you have positively identified a true cause. But whatever the case. . .I get your meaning. ASPD is what commonly leads to the kinds of behaviors demonstrated here but whatever the cause of ASPD itself is we only have some probable causes but nothing concrete.

I don't agree with the sentence I bolded above. There are lots of diseases and conditions that we can identify and have names for, yet we don't understand (or don't fully understand) the cause(s). The set of common symptoms DEFINES the disease or condition.

For example, the disease AIDS was identified in 1981 to 1982, and one of it's most prevalent symptoms was the formerly rare infection Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). To say that PCP couldn't validly be called a symptom of AIDS until HIV was conclusively identified as the cause of AIDs just doesn't make sense.

Or consider the disease Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS = Lou Gherig's disease). We still don't know its cause. Do you really insist that all of the various neurodegenerative characteristics of this disease can't properly be called "symptoms."

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

What's that got to do with what I said? :roll:

You accused me of having bloodlust. I'm just defending myself. I don't know what about the point of view I expressed in any of my previous posts led you to believe that I'm some kind of vengeful maniac bent on seeing "bad people" die or something. Nobody ever deserves to die at the hand of another. But it's not a matter of "deserving" for me. It's more a matter of necessity.

And why is it a 'necessity'?

For the same reasons why we dispose of vicious dogs rather than confining them indefinitely. . .haven't we been over this? In fact the question should really be why do we place so little significance on the life of a vicious dog who was just doing what dogs are prone to do (since they are by nature bred from territorial pack hunting animals) and so much significance on the life of a complete murdering sociopath who was fully conscious of the wrongness of his actions but yet did them anyway? What the dog did in biting a mailman is not really to be unexpected from a dog from time to time. . .But yet we put the dog down anyway despite the fact he was probably acting on instinct when he bit the mailman. Why is this?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Right I understand we've established that the symptoms demonstrated are common among those diagnosed with ASPD but what we still have not established is the cause of ASPD itself because the first line of the wiki article reads "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" which is basically like saying these symptoms can be attributed to some unknown cause. If an accurate causality link cannot be established then it really isn't accurate to label the symptoms as symptoms until you have positively identified a true cause. But whatever the case. . .I get your meaning. ASPD is what commonly leads to the kinds of behaviors demonstrated here but whatever the cause of ASPD itself is we only have some probable causes but nothing concrete.

I don't agree with the sentence I bolded above. There are lots of diseases and conditions that we can identify and have names for, yet we don't understand (or don't fully understand) the cause(s). The set of common symptoms DEFINES the disease or condition.

For example, the disease AIDS was identified in 1981 to 1982, and one of it's most prevalent symptoms was the formerly rare infection Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). To say that PCP couldn't validly be called a symptom of AIDS until HIV was conclusively identified as the cause of AIDs just doesn't make sense.

Or consider the disease Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS = Lou Gherig's disease). We still don't know its cause. Do you really insist that all of the various neurodegenerative characteristics of this disease can't properly be called "symptoms."

No, I got your meaning. . .Just next time when you set out to show something as a cause of some condition or symptom you might want to find a source that doesn't start off with "The exact cause is unknown." because it sort of comes off like saying you know the answer to a question and then giving the answer "I don't know." that's all

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

What's that got to do with what I said? :roll:

You accused me of having bloodlust. I'm just defending myself. I don't know what about the point of view I expressed in any of my previous posts led you to believe that I'm some kind of vengeful maniac bent on seeing "bad people" die or something. Nobody ever deserves to die at the hand of another. But it's not a matter of "deserving" for me. It's more a matter of necessity.

And why is it a 'necessity'?

For the same reasons why we dispose of vicious dogs rather than confining them indefinitely. . .haven't we been over this? In fact the question should really be why do we place so little significance on the life of a vicious dog who was just doing what dogs are prone to do (since they are by nature bred from territorial pack hunting animals) and so much significance on the life of a complete murdering sociopath who was fully conscious of the wrongness of his actions but yet did them anyway? What the dog did in biting a mailman is not really to be unexpected from a dog from time to time. . .But yet we put the dog down anyway despite the fact he was probably acting on instinct when he bit the mailman. Why is this?

If you still can't see the difference between a person and a dog, I'm just wasting my time. The Constitution doesn't apply to animals.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Right I understand we've established that the symptoms demonstrated are common among those diagnosed with ASPD but what we still have not established is the cause of ASPD itself because the first line of the wiki article reads "The exact cause of ASPD [Antisocial Personality Disorder] is not known" which is basically like saying these symptoms can be attributed to some unknown cause. If an accurate causality link cannot be established then it really isn't accurate to label the symptoms as symptoms until you have positively identified a true cause. But whatever the case. . .I get your meaning. ASPD is what commonly leads to the kinds of behaviors demonstrated here but whatever the cause of ASPD itself is we only have some probable causes but nothing concrete.

I don't agree with the sentence I bolded above. There are lots of diseases and conditions that we can identify and have names for, yet we don't understand (or don't fully understand) the cause(s). The set of common symptoms DEFINES the disease or condition.

For example, the disease AIDS was identified in 1981 to 1982, and one of it's most prevalent symptoms was the formerly rare infection Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). To say that PCP couldn't validly be called a symptom of AIDS until HIV was conclusively identified as the cause of AIDs just doesn't make sense.

Or consider the disease Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS = Lou Gherig's disease). We still don't know its cause. Do you really insist that all of the various neurodegenerative characteristics of this disease can't properly be called "symptoms."

No, I got your meaning. . .Just next time when you set out to show something as a cause of some condition or symptom you might want to find a source that doesn't start off with "The exact cause is unknown." because it sort of comes off like saying you know the answer to a question and then giving the answer "I don't know." that's all

Good point. I read "exact cause unknown" as saying our knowledge on this disorder isn't perfect, but we do know a lot (which was then listed). And I couldn't in good conscience edit out that phrase or find a source that indicated less uncertainty.

But to get back to my original response to blanghorst's post: I was just trying to say (1) I don't see any indication that people are overall any worse nowadays, and (2) the reasons provided are in fact just characteristics of sociopathic personalities not the cause of sociopathic personalities.

Maybe the simplest thing I could have written was: Acts like in the OP are committed by sociopaths, and we don't yet fully understand what causes that disorder.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
My bloodlust? Sorry, 404 bloodlust not found. Clearly you have not bothered to comprehend a single word of my point of view on the subject. I can see that you are capable of seeing only black or white with no shades of grey. There's this area of existence where most of the other well balanced and cognitively functional people of the world reside called the "middle-ground." In the "middle-ground" people objectively weigh pros and cons and arrive at conclusions based on relative merits and facts of individual scenarios in life rather than neatly filing everything into little bins labeled "Always right" and "Always wrong." Maybe you should visit some time. You might like it.

What's that got to do with what I said? :roll:

You accused me of having bloodlust. I'm just defending myself. I don't know what about the point of view I expressed in any of my previous posts led you to believe that I'm some kind of vengeful maniac bent on seeing "bad people" die or something. Nobody ever deserves to die at the hand of another. But it's not a matter of "deserving" for me. It's more a matter of necessity.

And why is it a 'necessity'?

For the same reasons why we dispose of vicious dogs rather than confining them indefinitely. . .haven't we been over this? In fact the question should really be why do we place so little significance on the life of a vicious dog who was just doing what dogs are prone to do (since they are by nature bred from territorial pack hunting animals) and so much significance on the life of a complete murdering sociopath who was fully conscious of the wrongness of his actions but yet did them anyway? What the dog did in biting a mailman is not really to be unexpected from a dog from time to time. . .But yet we put the dog down anyway despite the fact he was probably acting on instinct when he bit the mailman. Why is this?

If you still can't see the difference between a person and a dog, I'm just wasting my time. The Constitution doesn't apply to animals.

Why are you bringing up the constitution unless you are about to make the argument that capital punishment in all forms and under all circumstances should be considered cruel and unusual punishment? Is that where you are about to go with this? Or is there some other reason for bringing up the constitution?