Texas will execute a mentally disabled man on Tuesday

31 posts / 0 new

Despite the Supreme Court ruling in 20-02 that executing the mentally disabled violates the eighth amendment of the Constitution – Texas is poised to execute a mentally disabled man on Tuesday. 54-year-old Marvin Wilson killed a police informant in 1992, is mentally disabled, and has a reading and writing level comparable to a seventh-grader, with an IQ of 61.

Despite a scientific consensus proving that, the state of Texas has its own criteria to determine mental disabilities – and Wilson doesn’t pass the test. According to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, the factors Texas used to determine mental disability are, “based on false stereotypes about mental retardation that effectively exclude all but the most severely incapacitated.” As a result, a man is going to die tomorrow, and Texas Governor Rick Perry gets to carve another notch in his belt.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

I would think that any seventh grader could discern the difference between right and wrong.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Brookesmith:

I would think that any seventh grader could discern the difference between right and wrong.

Why not go to Texass and get a finger on the button yourself.

When you're finished, my punishment for you would be that you kiss that unfortunate man's corpse, on the ass, every day, for the rest of eternity.

Until you are rehabilitated, at least.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Wilson had been convicted of robbery three times prior to the murder of 21 yr old Williams. One of those was ARMED robbery. Wilson was supposed to be in prison at the time he murdered Williams. But thanks to our private for profit prison system,where we let violent offenders out early and keep non-violent drug offenders longer (perhaps because they are less violent and easier to warehouse).

Bottom line is that Marvin Lee Wilson is a dangerous animal with zero redeeming value or worth to a free and civil society. He has done nothing but take and destroy his entire life. And the world is a better and safer place without animals like him in it.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

What do YOU do with animals? If your dog pees on your carpet, do you shoot it?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My dog is house broke. If catch my neighbors dog killing my sheep or goats I shoot it.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm
Quote Brookesmith:
Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:

54-year-old Marvin Wilson killed a police informant in 1992, is mentally disabled, and has a reading and writing level comparable to a seventh-grader, with an IQ of 61.

I would think that any seventh grader could discern the difference between right and wrong.

Of course you would think that. You probably also would think that we should execute first-graders.

"Age of Reason: The name given to that period of human life at which persons are deemed to begin to be morally responsible. This, as a rule, happens at the age of seven..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And your point is?

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

Probably one of the stupidist things people can do is give government the power to execute them.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

They're executing Grover Norquist?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote chilidog:

"Age of Reason: The name given to that period of human life at which persons are deemed to begin to be morally responsible. This, as a rule, happens at the age of seven..."

And your point is?

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

Marvin Wilson was convicted and sentenced by two different juries.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

That's a good point. Do we really trust jury systems anymore anyway? Or, is all judgment to go through the 'politically correct filter' offered here in thomland? You know, 'rehabilitate the DNA proven child rapist-murderer'--but, 'execute the hate criminal' (or, perhaps, it is more politically correct to just say 'prosecute to the fullest extent of the law against the hate criminal').....No matter how little anyone knows of the specifics of any case at hand as a jury might....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Reading levels and IQs are pretty awful ways to determine someone's mental capacities as a whole. Thom honestly doesn't provide enough information in his post. While someone like this would most likely be flagged for a generalized learning disability in school, these definitions change in adult life and focus more on functional capacity and economic viability than on learning goals. The average adult in the US reads at an 8th-9th grade reading level. Are we supposed to consider all of these folks mentally handicapped?

It might be prudent to get more information on the specifics of the case before rendering a strong opinion of its outcome.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169243/will-texas-execute-man-iq-61#

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/marvin-wilson-texas-61-iq-to-be-executed_n_1739342.html

Anyway, this type of thing should come as no surprise as convicting children as adults is also on the rise. There seems to be a cultural shift going on regarding when people start becoming ethically aware and responsible for their actions.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Are any people to become 'ethically aware and responsible for their actions' in thomland? Last time I had a discussion about that, the claim was 'too much emphasis was being put on personal responsibility by the conservatives' (and, again, I don't even considered myself 'conservative').....should anyone be 'responsible for their actions' in any circumstance in the land of 'political correctness'? Here, it appears more that political clout and power (and, yes, the judgment behind it) is to be given more to those who can claim 'victimhood' than those who even attempt to ask 'But what of personal responsibility'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The salient point was that in the state of Texas an IQ of 61 is normal. Therefore if a state is full of morons, there can be no disability. Kind of like the Russell paradox.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Is it really 'politically correct' to say that one with an IQ of 61 is 'a moron'? What happened to the politically correct position that the IQ does not correlate to complete intelligence? And, what happened to juries determining this? And, what happened to anyone being responsible for their actions in any way? Are you claiming that this person did not realize the extent of his actions? Could you not say that about any mass murderer? Or, even any murderer? How far is 'no personal responsibility in any action' to go--and us still maintain a civil society? Or, do you think that a civil society can be maintained on anything other than personal responsibility for one's actions? And, if so, what might that be?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, I just want to point out that YOU are the only one using the phrase 'no personal responsibility in any action'. So, I have no idea why you have it in quotes. None of us here, nor the previous court cases that say disabled individuals cannot be executed for their crimes, have suggested that. Rather that individuals like this should probably be institutionalized either in a prison or mental hospital specifically designed for this purpose.

Additionally, you are being overly reductive to suggest that liberals have no sense of individual responsibility for particular outcomes. Rather our focus has often been to have discussion regarding the relative weight of individual vs social contributions to particular outcomes and then to base policy decisions on that deliberation. It is mainly Libertarians that hold on to a dogmatic view that ONLY individual causes can be attributed to societal and individual outcomes.

In this particular case, I think it is pretty obvious this person has made some horrible decisions and is individually accountable for his actions. The issue at stake here is whether his mental capacity should have some bearing on whether he is executed rather than imprisoned.

Also, it should be noted that "moron" was the technical term used by the makers of the IQ test for people within this IQ score range: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

Certainly not PC but in some way technically/historically "accurate." More modern terminology would call this group "mild mentally retarded."

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Kerry, I just want to point out that YOU are the only one using the phrase 'no personal responsibility in any action'.

I have it in quotes because I suspect that 'we' haven't agreed to its definition nor extent--so, I have to 'float it' for now. I do know that there are those here in thomland that do hold a position against personal responsibility in anything--claiming, just as a I said, it being 'too conservative' (and I'm not going to explain why I put that in quotes, also--what's 'too conservative', etc....).

Quote ah2:

Rather that individuals like this should probably be institutionalized either in a prison or mental hospital specifically designed for this purpose.

I don't know the specifics of the case. Brookesmith has pointed out that two juries came to the same decision. And, I wouldn't be able to judge that decision without more information. Do I believe that some people deserve the death penalty? Is that what this is about? Well, I believe in the death penalty for DNA-proven child rapist-murderers. But, I also know that some here would rather they be 'rehabilitated'--even as hate criminals should be 'prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law'....and some murderers are too stupid to be responsible for what they do--perhaps no matter how often they do it or how other crimes indicate their propensity to disregard other people's lives and wellbeing.....

Quote ah2:

Additionally, you are being overly reductive to suggest that liberals have no sense of individual responsibility for particular outcomes.

Are you going to explain what 'overly reductive' is--or am I just going to have to take that on faith in the wonderland of conceptualizations? Let's see:

Quote ah2:

Rather our focus has often been to have discussion regarding the relative weight of individual vs social contributions to particular outcomes and then to base policy decisions on that deliberation.

Is that another way of saying that you would 'rehabilitate the DNA proven child rapist-murderer'--but, you would 'prosecute to the fullest extent of the law a hate criminal'? No matter what the specifics of the infraction contain....as, perhaps, a jury deciding the case would have to witness....if so, I disagree with that conceptualization in content and context when it comes to my understanding of 'personal responsibility'.....

Quote ah2:

It is mainly Libertarians that hold on to a dogmatic view that ONLY individual causes can be attributed to societal and individual outcomes.

Are you going to explain what 'dogmatic view' is--or am I just to take that on faith in the wonderland of conceptualizations? But, when it comes to 'societal outcomes' vs. 'individual outcomes', who, or what, are you giving the credit and authority to make such distinctions? And, what justifies in your mind a 'societal outcome' that doesn't have an 'individual component'? If you ignore the individual components to every societal issue, then you do position yourself to claim such things as being for 'rehabilitating the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as you are all for 'prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law the hate criminal'--no matter how horrendous and heinous the specifics of the crime may be....so, I don't see that as endorsing 'personal responsibility'.....

Quote ah2:

In this particular case, I think it is pretty obvious this person has made some horrible decisions and is individually accountable for his actions.

Individually accountable? I always agree with that because I see personal responsibility as the only basis for a civil society to be sustained. Do you see civil society being sustained in any other way than being personally responsible for your actions? And, do your comrades in this so-called liberal political view agree with your rendition of individual accountability with someone that has an IQ of 61? What IQ would make one individually accountable and personally responsible? 80? 79? Something more? Something less?

Quote ah2:

The issue at stake here is whether his mental capacity should have some bearing on whether he is executed rather than imprisoned.

Oh? Do you believe in anyone being executed for their crimes? How about a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer? Even with an IQ of 61? I believe in the jury system making such decisions--and I can't second guess them without more information available--even in this case....By the way, I don't believe in all crimes--even murders--being punished by execution....I am not sure if I would agree with this one or not....

Quote ah2:

Certainly not PC but in some way technically/historically "accurate." More modern terminology would call this group "mild mentally retarded."

The question is do they realize the consequences of their actions? If so, they are personally responsible. Can a person with an IQ of 61 realize the consequences of their actions? I think that determination will need more specific information for me to determine that. In that case of a person with an IQ of 61 that is DNA-proven to rape and murder a child, I would still be for executing them....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Kerry, I just want to point out that YOU are the only one using the phrase 'no personal responsibility in any action'.

I have it in quotes because I suspect that 'we' haven't agreed to its definition nor extent--so, I have to 'float it' for now. I do know that there are those here in thomland that do hold a position against personal responsibility in anything--claiming, just as a I said, it being 'too conservative' (and I'm not going to explain why I put that in quotes, also--what's 'too conservative', etc....).

Oh I see. You are one of those. Let me summarily eviscerate you now.

'We' don't need to agree on a definition or extent because NO ONE except you is saying it. So, you are apparently 'floating it' because you know it is a bullshit strawman claim that no one has asserted. Please provide evidence that there are people here in 'thomland' that believe that there is never an instance where people should take responsibilty for their actions. I will accept nothing less than a direct quote from a contributor to the boards and a link to the thread in which it resides. I wish you good luck in your pursuit. Until then, everyone can safely assume you are full of shit.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Rather that individuals like this should probably be institutionalized either in a prison or mental hospital specifically designed for this purpose.

I don't know the specifics of the case. Brookesmith has pointed out that two juries came to the same decision. And, I wouldn't be able to judge that decision without more information. Do I believe that some people deserve the death penalty? Is that what this is about? Well, I believe in the death penalty for DNA-proven child rapist-murderers. But, I also know that some here would rather they be 'rehabilitated'--even as hate criminals should be 'prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law'....and some murderers are too stupid to be responsible for what they do--perhaps no matter how often they do it or how other crimes indicate their propensity to disregard other people's lives and wellbeing.....

You are deflecting the issue. This is not about your opinion of the dealth penalty but your misstatement of other people's views. Nor is this about rehabilitation versus incarceration because the disabled, by definition, have cronic conditions that exclude any real sense of rehabilitation except in the cases of temporary injury or illness which is not pertinent to this case. Again, the issue here isn't even about the death penalty in general. It is about whether someone with a disability that constitutes a persistent diminished mental capacity should be given the death penalty for actions they may not fully understand. Now, in terms of this case specifically, I was the first one to point out that Thom's post did not contain enough information as to whether this was the case for this particular criminal. But you were making false claims about individuals opinions on the general theoretical principle of the level of responsibility individuals of diminished capacity should take for their actions, not this particular case - a bona fide strawman as YOU were the first to make this claim. That is, unless you can answer for the above challenge. Until then, everyone can safely assume you are full of shit.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Additionally, you are being overly reductive to suggest that liberals have no sense of individual responsibility for particular outcomes.

Are you going to explain what 'overly reductive' is--or am I just going to have to take that on faith in the wonderland of conceptualizations?

It is not my responsibility to account for your lack of vocabulary. If you don't understand big words, look them up and learn or ask a direct question and I will answer it. Apparently you are within the average range for reading levels for the US.

Quote Kerry:

Let's see:

Quote ah2:

Rather our focus has often been to have discussion regarding the relative weight of individual vs social contributions to particular outcomes and then to base policy decisions on that deliberation.

Is that another way of saying that you would 'rehabilitate the DNA proven child rapist-murderer'--but, you would 'prosecute to the fullest extent of the law a hate criminal'? No matter what the specifics of the infraction contain....as, perhaps, a jury deciding the case would have to witness....if so, I disagree with that conceptualization in content and context when it comes to my understanding of 'personal responsibility'.....

First, there is no such thing as a 'DNA proven child rapist-murderer.' And second, you are now contradicting my previously made statements as I have made clear in both of my previous posts, including the statement you are responding to here, that it is precisely the specifics that matter to us. You on the other hand, have openly admitted that you care very little about the specifics and would always and forever hold individuals completely responsible for their actions regardless of the specifics, which would include but not be limited to (I assume) whether the person had any real idea of what they were doing or not.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

It is mainly Libertarians that hold on to a dogmatic view that ONLY individual causes can be attributed to societal and individual outcomes.

Are you going to explain what 'dogmatic view' is--or am I just to take that on faith in the wonderland of conceptualizations?

It is not my responsibility to account for your lack of vocabulary. If you don't understand big words, look them up and learn or ask a direct question and I will answer it.

Quote Kerry:

But, when it comes to 'societal outcomes' vs. 'individual outcomes', who, or what, are you giving the credit and authority to make such distinctions? And, what justifies in your mind a 'societal outcome' that doesn't have an 'individual component'? If you ignore the individual components to every societal issue, then you do position yourself to claim such things as being for 'rehabilitating the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as you are all for 'prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law the hate criminal'--no matter how horrendous and heinous the specifics of the crime may be....so, I don't see that as endorsing 'personal responsibility'.....

Now you are arguing a position that no one here has taken. This is you talking against your false description of your generic "liberal from thomland" and the strawman position that none of us has taken. If you read my post, I never made a distinction between a "societal outcome" and an "individual outcome." Rather, I said only "outcome" which always and forever will have both societal and individual causes. My statement and position was that liberals, by and large, are concerned with having a conversation about the relative wieght between the two in every circumstance and that our decisions must be based on this. Of course, this too might be a simplistic view of what we are concerned with because it also has to do with "locus of control" - who or what has control or not over the causal factor. For example, a intellectual disability is most certainly an individual contributing factor but it would be incorrect to say that the individual actually had control over that factor. Rather it is an individual causal factor which they had no control over. However, one might imagine a different scenario where say the intellectual disability was autism that was caused by the common use of mercury and other chemicals in vaccinations that are required by law (science is still out on this but evidence is strongly suggestive that this is contributing factor). Then is that a individual or a societal cause? Did the individual (as a month old infant) or soceity (which knowingly subjects infants to a causal factor for autism) have more culpibility in a crime that individual may have committed as a result of their disability? Is the solution to this problem to execute said individual (and all other individuals subject to the same chain of events and causal factors) or perhaps revisit the use of mercury and other harmful chemicals in vaccinations?

In short, SPECIFICS MATTER. The relative weight of individual vs societal causes for ALL outcomes matters.

The rest of your statement here is a red herring/strawman. YOU were the one that brought up convicting a hate criminal and acquiting a "DNA-proven child rapist/murder" (which still does not exist), not me. If you want to argue with yourself, fine. Leave me out of it.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

In this particular case, I think it is pretty obvious this person has made some horrible decisions and is individually accountable for his actions.

Individually accountable? I always agree with that because I see personal responsibility as the only basis for a civil society to be sustained.

This is what I was talking about above. You believe that societal factors should not be accounted for in any circumstance. You openly admit here that the specifics of a situation do not matter to you and that you will always hold an individual accountable for any particular outcome regardless of the relative wieght of individual and societal causes and the locus of control.

Quote Kerry:Do you see civil society being sustained in any other way than being personally responsible for your actions?

I believe that many things that happen in a civil society are not only the outcome of but also REQUIRE collective action. I also believe in theories of nominalism, partial agency, the structural limitations and possibilities of language, the socially structuring capacity of discourse and a number of other things that would take me too long to explain to you here. Simply put, there is relatively little if nothing that people do completely "individually." That doesn't obsolve them of responsibility. This is simply recognizing that much of who we are and what we do is the result of our environment and the choices we make in response to it. Sometimes these choices have been structured in a way in which we have little choice at all and other times, we have a lot of reign over our own outcomes. To deny this would be to suggest that differentials in power do not exist in civil society - that we all have equal and complete control over our destinies. A laughable claim.

Quote Kerry:And, do your comrades in this so-called liberal political view agree with your rendition of individual accountability with someone that has an IQ of 61? What IQ would make one individually accountable and personally responsible? 80? 79? Something more? Something less?

Oh how cute. You used the word comrade because you think it implies that I am a Marxist-Leninist and you thought that by throwing that in there it would somehow legitimize your perspective? Pretty pathetic.

As I stated above, IQs and reading scores are not a good measure of someone's complete intellectual capacity. This, again, is a strawman - at least when you are addressing my points.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

The issue at stake here is whether his mental capacity should have some bearing on whether he is executed rather than imprisoned.

Oh? Do you believe in anyone being executed for their crimes? How about a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer? Even with an IQ of 61? I believe in the jury system making such decisions--and I can't second guess them without more information available--even in this case....By the way, I don't believe in all crimes--even murders--being punished by execution....I am not sure if I would agree with this one or not....

A DNA-proven child rapist-murderer does not exist. No, I don't believe executing people for their crimes for the sole purpose that the justice system is fallible. Death is permanent. It is illogical to assume that we have the capacity to decide once and for all whether someone should live or not.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Certainly not PC but in some way technically/historically "accurate." More modern terminology would call this group "mild mentally retarded."

The question is do they realize the consequences of their actions? If so, they are personally responsible. Can a person with an IQ of 61 realize the consequences of their actions? I think that determination will need more specific information for me to determine that. In that case of a person with an IQ of 61 that is DNA-proven to rape and murder a child, I would still be for executing them....

I am reading this now and wondering if I am misinterpreting your "DNA-proven child rapist-murderer" phrase. Are you saying that the person was proven by DNA test to have raped and murdered a child or are you saying that their DNA has compelled them with no choice of their own to rape and murder children? If it is the former, please disregard my previous statements regarding their non-existence. If it is the latter, understand that this, again, was an argument and distinction that only you have made and no one else here suggested. As such, it is a strawman and a logical fallacy. Completely unworth anyone's time discussing.

Beyond that, the first two sentences in this paragraph are exactly what I said in my first post - IQ alone is insufficient to determine whether someone is aware of their actions and the associated consequences (unless it is so ridiculously low that it it would indicate very little higher order function in the brian at all). At a 61 IQ, I would expect that a large number of individuals would be perfectly capable of determining right from wrong and understanding consequences. Others may not.

Given that I don't believe in the death penalty in general, that question is moot for me. Rather the answer to their level of understanding would determine their placement in either a prison or a hospital or living facility designed for individuals with intellectual disabilities and violent tendencies.

Two thoughts for you to consider - killing a mentally incapable individual for rape or murder does not un-rape or un-murder their victim. Nor does it really bring any sense of real justice given they had no real idea what they were doing in the first place. I suppose this partly has to do with my knowledge and background in dealing with disability issues and the historical trajectory it has taken. Your position is a short distance from the common practice of labotomization, forced euthanization, and permanent incarceration in mental insitutions that was relatively common not even 200 years ago. It is a slippery slope and opens a deeper conversation about what it means to be human and a number of other ethical considerations probably too heavy for a forum board.

Secondly, if you are interested in a more in-depth discussion of causal attribution, you may consider the works of Bernard Wiener and in particular his most recent book: Social Motivation, Justice, And The Moral Emotions: An Attributional Approach. I disagree with some of what he says but I think if you took a look at his work it would provide you with a more complex and complete understanding of social and individual causal factors.

Finally, Kerry, if you choose to respond. Respond to my points. Not ones you make up that you want to pretend I or others here believe to make you feel good about yourself. It makes you look like an idiot (and, no, that is not PC).

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

'We' don't need to agree on a definition or extent because NO ONE except you is saying it. So, you are apparently 'floating it' because you know it is a bullshit strawman claim that no one has asserted/

Well, if 'we' don't agree on the concepts and definitions, I am not sure how 'we' are communicating--other than by you being able to use words and concepts that I don't see (such as 'overly reductive' and 'dogmatic view') that maybe those of your particular sway and particular political angle agree with (also, without explaining it), we aren't.....and, once again, I do KNOW that some of those here in thomland have been against 'personal responsibility' as being something that conservatives use too much (apparently to control people with). So, I'm going to stick with floating my 'no personal responsibility in any action' until I see how you and your comrades endorse personal responsibility in some action. Until then, 'we' haven't agreed on anything when it comes to the issue of 'personal responsibility' and 'actions with it'.....

Quote ah2:

Please provide evidence that there are people here in 'thomland' that believe that there is never an instance where people should take responsibilty for their actions.

Ask DRC what DRC's viewpoint is on 'personal responsibility'--even including a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. Then, turn around and ask DRC what should be done with a hate criminal. We went over this on the abortion thread--you know, the one where it was 'inhumane' to kill a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer in the manner that I wanted to do it--but no problem to suck fetal brains out and crush fetal skulls right before birth if the mother wanted it. Still quite remarkable in its cognitive dissonance....and, having a person with an IQ of 61 being executed as being 'inhumane' falls right in that category for me....when you don't see a fetus getting their brain sucked out and their skull crushed right before birth as being 'inhumane', I'm really not sure how you guage 'inhumanity'--except in the very impersonal way that is deemed 'politically correct' by certain adherents to the cause....

Quote ah2:

I will accept nothing less than a direct quote from a contributor to the boards and a link to the thread in which it resides. I wish you good luck in your pursuit. Until then, everyone can safely assume you are full of shit.

Read above. If I am wrong in my assessment, those involved can correct it--but, calling it a 'strawman argument' doesn't do so....

Quote ah2:

You are deflecting the issue. This is not about your opinion of the dealth penalty but your misstatement of other people's views.

Misstatement? I am not misstating it at all--the evidence of claiming to be for rehabilitating DNA-proven child rapist-murderers (and claiming killing them in the manner that I wanted to as being 'inhumane') is all over the abortion thread--and wanting to 'punish to the fullest extent of the law' any 'hate criminal' is on those threads concerning that issue (by the same posters). And, I named at least one of the posters involved (DRC)--there are others. I'm not going to go looking more for your proof in that. But, I will say it again: There are those here that want to rehabilitate the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer, be complacent with fetal brain sucking and skull crushing right before birth if the mother wants it, AND still prosecute to the fullest any hate criminal. Right in line with your claim that 'social issues' trump any 'individual concerns'--which, when it comes to how I understand 'personal responsibility', I completely disagree with.....and claiming anything about there being a 'strawman argument' doesn't address those points....now, if they want to come in here and claim that is not their position, go ahead and do so.....otherwise, you have enough here to go by now...,.

Quote ah2:

Again, the issue here isn't even about the death penalty in general. It is about whether someone with a disability that constitutes a persistent diminished mental capacity should be given the death penalty for actions they may not fully understand.

So, if this isn't about 'the death penalty in general', are you saying that you agree with the death penalty in any particular case? Say, a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. If not, then, this is about the death penalty in general--and your claim on someone's ability to understand the consequences of their actions is secondary to that--and becomes a moot point.

And, how do you prove that someone else understands the consequences of their actions? If a person with an IQ of 61, say, hugged someone to death and, then, after that, said, 'What happened?', then I would say that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions. If a person with an IQ of 61 sought out a person that snitched on them for dealing drugs to get back at them for snitching, then I would say that they have some knowledge of the consequences of their actions because they planned the act.

So, is this about the death penalty in general or not? Or, applying it to those who understand the consequences of their actions? Does a mass murderer 'understand the consequences of their actions'? If you are a person that claims that you couldn't kill anyone under any circumstance, to your understanding, does any murderer 'understand the consequences of their actions'? Or, does that not matter--and, in the sense of a hate crime, it only matters if you can assume the killing was predicated on some racial, sexual predisposition, or some other religious, cultural, or other form of prejudice--despite the specifics of the killing? So, should all other people be rehabilitated--or should some be punished? And, if punished, should some get the death penalty? If not, then what are you arguing about here?

Quote ah2:

But you were making false claims about individuals opinions on the general theoretical principle of the level of responsibility individuals of diminished capacity should take for their actions, not this particular case - a bona fide strawman as YOU were the first to make this claim. That is, unless you can answer for the above challenge. Until then, everyone can safely assume you are full of shit.

There're not false claims. And, I think they go directly to this issue of crime, punishment, and human behavior--and what is 'humane' and 'inhumane' in addressing such. I, also, said that I would need more information on this case--but, I, also, told you that I could see situations where even a person with an IQ of 61 could deserve the death penalty. But, then, I believe that the death penalty is warranted in some crimes depending upon the nature of their actions. Some here (DRC) have claimed that such punishment is to be reserved only for hate crimes--the 'social issue' that you seem to portend to. And, I don't think that that addresses 'personal responsibility' as I understand it. And, I don't think it is a 'strawman argument'--but, I know how you like to use that when you don't want to account for much of what I bring up about this....it's a tactic you have in common with many of your comrades in political disposition with discussions such as this....

Quote ah2:
Quote Kerry:

Are you going to explain what 'overly reductive' is--or am I just going to have to take that on faith in the wonderland of conceptualizations?

It is not my responsibility to account for your lack of vocabulary. If you don't understand big words, look them up and learn or ask a direct question and I will answer it.

Which, of course, is just another way of you saying that you aren't going to explain it--which is why I think it ought to be in quotes. Let me ask you this: Is it 'overly reductive' for me to ask you whether you would be for the death penalty in any case? For a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer? Even with an IQ of 61? Or does it have to be a murder predicated by the assumption of some general prejudice on the person murdered--racial, sexual disposition, etc.? Or, should everyone be 'rehabilitated'? You need to provide some examples for me to understand where you are coming from on this issue of crime, punishment, and judging human behavior--or is that 'overly reductive' to you?

Quote ah2:

First, there is no such thing as a 'DNA proven child rapist-murderer.'

Bullshit. There is such a thing. But, you don't want to address it, do you? And you claim me as the one having the 'overly reductive' and 'dogmatic view'.....the cognitive dissonance exudes from your posts here....but, that's nothing new coming from those who love to pontificate on principle without addressing their role in any specific cases....would that be 'overly reductive' to you?

Quote ah2:

You on the other hand, have openly admitted that you care very little about the specifics and would always and forever hold individuals completely responsible for their actions regardless of the specifics, which would include but not be limited to (I assume) whether the person had any real idea of what they were doing or not.

Oh, I am the one asking for YOU to comment on your general predisposition AND on the specific circumstances that I give as examples--of which you are not doing--probably claiming some bullshit about 'strawman argument' without once really addressing the points in the issue--generally or specifically. General predispositions such as: Do you think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility? I'll see if you address that one. Or, specific circumstances such as: Do you think that a person with an IQ of 61 can have an understanding of the consequences of their actions? Just as another interesting specific that I just thought up: If you don't think that a person with an IQ of 61 can ever understand the consequences of their actions, do you think that they should have the right to vote (do you think they would vote Democratic?...8^)....)? Not a 'strawman argument'--that's me trying to probe the extent of how far YOU would go in exonerating the actions of any person for anything if their IQ is to be determined as being 61......I would still have them executed if they were DNA-proven to have raped and murdered a child.....and, if this person with an IQ of 61 sought another person out to get back at them for snitching on them, they have some cognitive compacity to plan their actions, do they not? Now, how they carried out the murder could, also, factor into how I would judge it--and 'we' don't have enough of that information, do 'we'? But, I am also looking for just how far your position on the death penalty, or any punishment vs. other means to 'humanely address crime', is in general--and to what extent that applies to any potential specific circumstance--especially, considering any 'personal responsibility' that I think is necessary in maintaining a civil society. Or, is that 'overly reductive' to you--and, of course, 'you' don't want to be 'overly reductive', do you? But, then, how that plays into any 'dogmatic view' from you then comes out, doesn't it? Especially on any part of you not wanting to describe what you mean--and how far you mean it....and, I realize how people with 'dogmatic viewpoints' really don't want to be responsible for too many 'specifics' in any issue--and you are no exception to that observation, yet.....

I'll split this up...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Another failed social experiment!

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

What would Texas do if a pregnant woman was scheduled for execution?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote ah2:
Quote Kerry:

But, when it comes to 'societal outcomes' vs. 'individual outcomes', who, or what, are you giving the credit and authority to make such distinctions? And, what justifies in your mind a 'societal outcome' that doesn't have an 'individual component'? If you ignore the individual components to every societal issue, then you do position yourself to claim such things as being for 'rehabilitating the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as you are all for 'prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law the hate criminal'--no matter how horrendous and heinous the specifics of the crime may be....so, I don't see that as endorsing 'personal responsibility'.....

Now you are arguing a position that no one here has taken. This is you talking against your false description of your generic "liberal from thomland" and the strawman position that none of us has taken. If you read my post, I never made a distinction between a "societal outcome" and an "individual outcome." Rather, I said only "outcome" which always and forever will have both societal and individual causes. My statement and position was that liberals, by and large, are concerned with having a conversation about the relative wieght between the two in every circumstance and that our decisions must be based on this.

I don't know what your position on 'personal responsibility' is in any case--I get the idea that you lean towards it not being applied in the case of a person with an IQ of 61. I have proposed that no civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility. You've made no comment whatsoever on how you see civil society being maintained--with or without personal responsibility--nor what 'personal responsibility' actually entails in your viewpoint. Just a lot of slurs on my viewpoint without really qualifying your own position or remarks other than by some rather vague accusations having something to do with being 'overly reductive' and 'dogmatic' (again, without explaining what you mean)--another typical tactic used oftentimes by those of the so-called 'liberal persuasion' in thomland.....and, of course, if that doesn't work, resort to the accusation of 'strawman argument' without explaining that one, either.....

What do you mean by 'societal and individual causes' and their 'relative weight'? Which one in a civil society is to hold precedence--and why? Especially considering that I don't think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility--that's why I think that people should be held personally responsible for their actions. But, you don't have to fret too much about that because I, also, think that personal responsibility is tied into the political access (and priority) of individual rights being applied as extensively as they can and maintain a civil society (and do believe that most people given themselves the freedom to consider that prospect can come up with reasonable and rational extents to such conditions--just like in a jury trial)--and I give a whole lot of leeway (probably more than most 'conservatives') in defining that (but it doesn't include fetal brain sucking and skull crushing right before birth even if it does include the mother being allowed to abort that fetus for any, or no apparent, reason at all before fetal viability).

Quote ah2:

Of course, this too might be a simplistic view of what we are concerned with because it also has to do with "locus of control" - who or what has control or not over the causal factor. For example, a intellectual disability is most certainly an individual contributing factor but it would be incorrect to say that the individual actually had control over that factor. Rather it is an individual causal factor which they had no control over.

So what? That doesn't address the more specific question: Can a person with an IQ of 61 understand the consequences of their actions in any circumstance? And, I've explained to you on the previous post how that can be considered.....

Quote ah2:

However, one might imagine a different scenario where say the intellectual disability was autism that was caused by the common use of mercury and other chemicals in vaccinations that are required by law (science is still out on this but evidence is strongly suggestive that this is contributing factor). Then is that a individual or a societal cause? Did the individual (as a month old infant) or soceity (which knowingly subjects infants to a causal factor for autism) have more culpibility in a crime that individual may have committed as a result of their disability? Is the solution to this problem to execute said individual (and all other individuals subject to the same chain of events and causal factors) or perhaps revisit the use of mercury and other harmful chemicals in vaccinations?

I think that you are just intentionally confusing the issue now--are you being 'overly generalistic'? No matter what the disability, the question still becomes: Can that person in whatever state that they are in understand the consequences of their actions? The issues about whether or not they have been exposed to neurotoxins--and whether or not 'society' caused that--is, again, secondary to the primary point: Can that person in whatever state that they are in understand the consequences of their actions?

On the abortion thread, there was a different example of this--and it was an example of how I see the 'politically correct' more proned to try to assign 'triumphant victimhood status' to such people than ever acknowledge how personal responsiblity fits into a civil society. And, it was about a person exposed to a neurotoxin--but, this time, it was self-induced--alcohol. And, this was presented to me as a true story and knowing how this 'system' functions, I don't doubt it. It is a story about two drunks that presented to an ER in New York City that decided to leave against medical advice. The first drunk walked out of the hospital and got ran over in the street and killed. His family got word of what happened and sued the hospital, the ER doctor, and the ER company--and won the lawsuit. Then, in the same ER with the same ER doctor, another drunk presented and tried to leave. Remembering what happened in the first malpractice case, the ER doctor this time tied the drunk down and drugged him to force him to stay. That drunk sued everyone for being kept against his will--and won. The ER doctor, sensing that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't and feeling trapped by such a predicament, complained vehemently to the hospital and his ER company about being put into such a position--and was told to go to anger management classes. The drunks, either way, had 'triumphant victimhood status' and, as such, was exonerated from any responsibility for their actions despite how limited and constrained that those made responsible for those drunks' activities were made to be. And, in such a 'triumphant victimhood status', the drunks had no personal responsibility for their actions--apparently not in even taking the choice about being drunk and considering how that could harm oneself. How can an ER doctor get out of such a predicament. Well, as the real world indicates, when it is damned if you do and damned if you don't, just make sure that you are on the side of the one doing the damning. In these cases, there are those that can confine the drunks against their will--the police. And, if the ER personnel see that drunk trying to leave (and that's a big IF--sometimes they just sneak out--and ER's aren't prisons), then confront the drunk that, as soon as they step out of that ER door, you are going to have them arrested by the police for public intoxication. And, guess what? In every case, the drunk will stay. Are they 'understanding the consequences of their actions' at that point--even as drunk? Now, how much of a civil society can 'we' maintain without personal responsibility....

Quote ah2:

In short, SPECIFICS MATTER.

Yes, but do your GENERAL SPECIFICS preempt the PARTICULAR SPECIFICS that involve personal responsibility in such cases--as that person understanding the consequences of their actions? Whether drunk--or with an IQ of 61? I don't think that your GENERAL SPECIFICS do....not in every PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE--including a person with an IQ of 61 murdering another....

Quote ah2:

The rest of your statement here is a red herring/strawman. YOU were the one that brought up convicting a hate criminal and acquiting a "DNA-proven child rapist/murder" (which still does not exist), not me.

Of course, they're a strawman if you say so, right? Even though you don't even have to explain how......I've explained why I don't think that a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer represents a strawman argument because it takes in how much YOU consider 'social issues' over 'individual behavior' AND 'personal responsibility'......same goes with hate criminals because, as my past discussions have shown, those who would rehabilitate a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law a 'hate criminal'--and would do so because of what they devise to be its social consequences regardless of any individual insult--or individual issues--at hand, and regardless of how premeditated and heinous any other crime would be. As I've said, that doesn't represent 'personal responsibility' to me....can you maintain a civil society without personal responsibility?

Quote ah2:

You believe that societal factors should not be accounted for in any circumstance.

No. I don't believe any allocation of the so-called 'societal factors' should ever preempt the individual consequences, nor the personal responsibility, of any act against another. And, if there are to be 'societal factors' involved, handle those in Congress--don't try to mediate the severity of the crime in court with them. I don't care if a person has had a hard life, has been exposed to neurotoxins when growing up, is drugged, and has an IQ of 61, if they rape and murder a child and can be DNA-proven to have done so, I think they ought to be executed. And, I know of exactly a case where someone raped and murdered a 9 year old girl, dumped her body in a trash bin, got convicted of it with DNA proof, and was able to stay off an execution (even in the state of Texas--but this was Austin where this happened) claiming to have been 'drugged' at the time (ah, yes, the 'victimhood triumphancy' even reaches to DNA-proven child rapist-murderers that don't have to be personally responsible for their actions....). And, I know of this issue because that person got out of prison in 9 years (probably to make more room for federally mandated sentences for non-violent drug users)--and tried to move into a town that I worked in--with the community openly and vocally voicing their disagreements about this person being in their town at all (that person did get put back into prison in a short amount of time over another issue).

I do not believe 'societal factors' do, or should, preempt personal responsibility. I don't think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility....

Quote ah2:

I believe that many things that happen in a civil society are not only the outcome of but also REQUIRE collective action.

You mean collective action preempts personal responsibility in some attempt in maintaining a civil society? How so? Let's see:

Quote ah2:

I also believe in theories of nominalism, partial agency, the structural limitations and possibilities of language, the socially structuring capacity of discourse and a number of other things that would take me too long to explain to you here. Simply put, there is relatively little if nothing that people do completely "individually."

Ah, so you believe in NO personal reponsibility, is that correct? Just like I thought. Then, who is to be responsible in the civil society? Those that claim that are there for 'collective purposes'--without qualifications? Who determines that--those that can just take the power to claim it? Or, in the damned if you do and damned if you don't world of accusations, are those that are responsible just the ones that can't claim 'victimhood triumphancy' in some way? And, like that ER doctor in New York City whose hands were tied by those drunks 'rights' (even though such 'rights' didn't involve personal responsibility), the ones that can't claim 'victimhood triumphancy' are even more 'socially responsible' for those that can make such excuses for themselves, is that the case? I don't think such 'collective causes' can maintain a civil society WITHOUT personal responsibility.

Quote ah2:

That doesn't obsolve them of responsibility.

It certainly act like it does--especially coming from someone who accused me of IGNORING SPECIFICS as if SPECIFICS MATTER.....all those vague 'social conditions' can be used to absolve any 'personal responsibility' (especially if 'victimhood triumphancy' can be claimed), I get it....I just don't agree with it....I don't think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility--even one, maybe even especially one, that claims 'collective conditions'....

Quote ah2:

Sometimes these choices have been structured in a way in which we have little choice at all and other times, we have a lot of reign over our own outcomes.

So, according to you, we are in a deterministic world and we can't help what we do, right? No free choice, anyway.....so, why any individual rights to begin with if all of our actions are 'pre-determined'?

Quote ah2:

To deny this would be to suggest that differentials in power do not exist in civil society - that we all have equal and complete control over our destinies. A laughable claim

Are you claiming that such 'differentials in power' are there to preempt any choice? And any right to choose? And any responsibility for such choices? Is that what you are saying? Or, is it to have some people not responsible for their actions as others are made more inordinately responsible for what their fellow man does as the 'differentials in power', is that it? Jesus did say 'For those given much, much will be required'--but, I thought that every adult was to have individual rights that coincide with individual responsibility. Or, is that to be overtaken by 'collective action'? What 'collective action'? The kind of 'collective action' without personal responsibility that could include war? Is war amenable to a civil society?

Quote ah2:

It is illogical to assume that we have the capacity to decide once and for all whether someone should live or not.

Does that include the 'collective action' of war? Inconsiderate of any personal responsibility--or personal rights....

Quote ah2:

As I stated above, IQs and reading scores are not a good measure of someone's complete intellectual capacity. This, again, is a strawman - at least when you are addressing my points.

Nope. I've already said that the circumstances surrounding this issue would matter. I am not factoring out a person with an IQ of 61 not being responsible for any of their actions--nor not being able to understand the consequences of their actions. And, two juries did find this man guilty. Are you saying that the 'differentials of power' that apparently predicate themselves on 'collective action' (and how those 'differentials of power' determine that in a deterministic world) preempt the decision of each and every individual in a jury trial? If you are, you are taking your 'differentials of power' to areas that were never considered appropriate in a system supposedly based on the 'equality of the law' (and the 'equality of rights' and the 'mutual respect' that is to contain) in this American experiment in democracy....can a civil society actually be maintained without personal responsibility?

Quote ah2:

Given that I don't believe in the death penalty in general, that question is moot for me.

Exactly what I thougt. No matter how heinous the crime? No matter how specific the proof? Such as in a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer.....and, of course, 'colllective action' preempts 'personal responsibility' anyway to you, doesn't it? By the way, some of your comrades (the same that want rehabilitation for such DNA-proven child rapist-murderers) would 'prosecute to the fullest extent of the law' any person convicted of a hate-crime (you know, the kind in Jasper, Texas, where three white men drug a black man behind their pick-up truck to that man's mangled, blood-spewn, slowly suffering death--and I believe two have already been executed--but, they would have been executed no matter what the color of the man they drug to death was....). So, it's not fair to have the 'punishment fit the crime' in your 'collective action' world, is it? After all, personal responsibility is not required for your 'collective action' world to maintain civility, is it? Again, I disagree....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:

What would Texas do if a pregnant woman was scheduled for execution?

I don't know. They couldn't wait until she delivers--or decides to abort? Maybe D_NATURED could come in and suck those fetal brains out and crush that fetal skull in just before birth--and, then, the woman is executed....eh?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

'We' don't need to agree on a definition or extent because NO ONE except you is saying it. So, you are apparently 'floating it' because you know it is a bullshit strawman claim that no one has asserted/

Well, if 'we' don't agree on the concepts and definitions, I am not sure how 'we' are communicating--other than by you being able to use words and concepts that I don't see (such as 'overly reductive' and 'dogmatic view') that maybe those of your particular sway and particular political angle agree with (also, without explaining it), we aren't.....and, once again, I do KNOW that some of those here in thomland have been against 'personal responsibility' as being something that conservatives use too much (apparently to control people with). So, I'm going to stick with floating my 'no personal responsibility in any action' until I see how you and your comrades endorse personal responsibility in some action. Until then, 'we' haven't agreed on anything when it comes to the issue of 'personal responsibility' and 'actions with it'.....

Look, the fact of the matter is, there is no definitional ambguity in the phrase 'no personal responsibility in any action.' Your explanation for why you are putting it in quotes is bullshit. If you were advancing an argument it would be your responsibility to define it within your text to make it coherent. I suggest you look at standard writing guides for uses of quotation marks. It is pretty clear that you were attempting to posit this as a pseudo quote. It was a strawman. Period.

As for my turns of phrase. They mean exactly what they mean in plain English. Overly reductive - you were intentionally leaving massive amounts of information and nuance out of your representation of the ideas typically presented by liberals in this particular debate. You were REDUCING theit to the point where it was not even representative of their viewpoint and, thus, was invalid.

Dogmatic view:

dogmatic - of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.

dogma - prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group

view - opinion; thought

dogmatic view - an opinion or thought based in prescribeddoctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.

Here ends your education in English language. Your dogmatic view, which you openly proclaimed, was that all outcomes should be boiled down to personal responsibility regardless of the specifics of the situation. A view commonly held by Classical Libertarianism.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Please provide evidence that there are people here in 'thomland' that believe that there is never an instance where people should take responsibilty for their actions.

Ask DRC what DRC's viewpoint is on 'personal responsibility'--even including a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. Then, turn around and ask DRC what should be done with a hate criminal. We went over this on the abortion thread--you know, the one where it was 'inhumane' to kill a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer in the manner that I wanted to do it--but no problem to suck fetal brains out and crush fetal skulls right before birth if the mother wanted it. Still quite remarkable in its cognitive dissonance....and, having a person with an IQ of 61 being executed as being 'inhumane' falls right in that category for me....when you don't see a fetus getting their brain sucked out and their skull crushed right before birth as being 'inhumane', I'm really not sure how you guage 'inhumanity'--except in the very impersonal way that is deemed 'politically correct' by certain adherents to the cause....

No. The claim was yours. Support it with evidence.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

I will accept nothing less than a direct quote from a contributor to the boards and a link to the thread in which it resides. I wish you good luck in your pursuit. Until then, everyone can safely assume you are full of shit.

Read above. If I am wrong in my assessment, those involved can correct it--but, calling it a 'strawman argument' doesn't do so....

Provide the quote and link. I will accept nothing else. The bottom line is that no one in this thread took this position.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

You are deflecting the issue. This is not about your opinion of the dealth penalty but your misstatement of other people's views.

Misstatement? I am not misstating it at all--the evidence of claiming to be for rehabilitating DNA-proven child rapist-murderers (and claiming killing them in the manner that I wanted to as being 'inhumane') is all over the abortion thread--and wanting to 'punish to the fullest extent of the law' any 'hate criminal' is on those threads concerning that issue (by the same posters). And, I named at least one of the posters involved (DRC)--there are others. I'm not going to go looking more for your proof in that. But, I will say it again: There are those here that want to rehabilitate the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer, be complacent with fetal brain sucking and skull crushing right before birth if the mother wants it, AND still prosecute to the fullest any hate criminal. Right in line with your claim that 'social issues' trump any 'individual concerns'--which, when it comes to how I understand 'personal responsibility', I completely disagree with.....and claiming anything about there being a 'strawman argument' doesn't address those points....now, if they want to come in here and claim that is not their position, go ahead and do so.....otherwise, you have enough here to go by now...,.

If you want to argue about another thread. Go back to that thread. This entire abortion thing you have brought in is a complete red herring. Can you make an argument without a logical fallacy?

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Again, the issue here isn't even about the death penalty in general. It is about whether someone with a disability that constitutes a persistent diminished mental capacity should be given the death penalty for actions they may not fully understand.

So, if this isn't about 'the death penalty in general', are you saying that you agree with the death penalty in any particular case? Say, a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. If not, then, this is about the death penalty in general--and your claim on someone's ability to understand the consequences of their actions is secondary to that--and becomes a moot point.

Perhaps you should read someone's entire response before replying.

Quote Kerry:

And, how do you prove that someone else understands the consequences of their actions? If a person with an IQ of 61, say, hugged someone to death and, then, after that, said, 'What happened?', then I would say that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions. If a person with an IQ of 61 sought out a person that snitched on them for dealing drugs to get back at them for snitching, then I would say that they have some knowledge of the consequences of their actions because they planned the act.

So, is this about the death penalty in general or not? Or, applying it to those who understand the consequences of their actions? Does a mass murderer 'understand the consequences of their actions'? If you are a person that claims that you couldn't kill anyone under any circumstance, to your understanding, does any murderer 'understand the consequences of their actions'? Or, does that not matter--and, in the sense of a hate crime, it only matters if you can assume the killing was predicated on some racial, sexual predisposition, or some other religious, cultural, or other form of prejudice--despite the specifics of the killing? So, should all other people be rehabilitated--or should some be punished? And, if punished, should some get the death penalty? If not, then what are you arguing about here?

This is something that can be evaluated by a psychologist. Virtually all of the other stuff you brought up is again a red herring. You have a really difficult time staying on topic.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

But you were making false claims about individuals opinions on the general theoretical principle of the level of responsibility individuals of diminished capacity should take for their actions, not this particular case - a bona fide strawman as YOU were the first to make this claim. That is, unless you can answer for the above challenge. Until then, everyone can safely assume you are full of shit.

There're not false claims. And, I think they go directly to this issue of crime, punishment, and human behavior--and what is 'humane' and 'inhumane' in addressing such. I, also, said that I would need more information on this case--but, I, also, told you that I could see situations where even a person with an IQ of 61 could deserve the death penalty. But, then, I believe that the death penalty is warranted in some crimes depending upon the nature of their actions. Some here (DRC) have claimed that such punishment is to be reserved only for hate crimes--the 'social issue' that you seem to portend to. And, I don't think that that addresses 'personal responsibility' as I understand it. And, I don't think it is a 'strawman argument'--but, I know how you like to use that when you don't want to account for much of what I bring up about this....it's a tactic you have in common with many of your comrades in political disposition with discussions such as this....

This issues you raise may be pertinent to the topic. The problem is how you have chosen to deliver it. If YOU want to address these issues in relation to the topic. Fine. State your God damned opinion and be done with it. Don't pretend you know what other people think and say "you all think blah blah blah and you're wrong." To be honest, I could give a shit about what DRC said in a different thread. You were responding to people that have replied in THIS thread. NONE of us purport to believe what you are claiming we do. EVEN IF DRC believes what you say, it is HIS perogative to represent his own views. Capiche? State YOUR opinions and support them with evidence and by their own merit. Don't do this, "You believe x, y, and z...." Unless you are taking from a direct statement of an opinion to that effect you have NO RIGHT to feign a representation of what we believe. That is a strawman. Look it up:

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

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:
Quote Kerry:

Are you going to explain what 'overly reductive' is--or am I just going to have to take that on faith in the wonderland of conceptualizations?

It is not my responsibility to account for your lack of vocabulary. If you don't understand big words, look them up and learn or ask a direct question and I will answer it.

Which, of course, is just another way of you saying that you aren't going to explain it--which is why I think it ought to be in quotes. Let me ask you this: Is it 'overly reductive' for me to ask you whether you would be for the death penalty in any case? For a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer? Even with an IQ of 61? Or does it have to be a murder predicated by the assumption of some general prejudice on the person murdered--racial, sexual disposition, etc.? Or, should everyone be 'rehabilitated'? You need to provide some examples for me to understand where you are coming from on this issue of crime, punishment, and judging human behavior--or is that 'overly reductive' to you?

None of this is overly reductive because they are QUESTIONS, rather than misrespresentations. QUESTIONS allow me and others to represent our own views. What is overly reductive is when we believe x, y, and z and you say you believe x and this is why it is wrong. In this particular case, you stated (and I am paraphrasing) "You all believe that no one should EVER have to take personal responsibility for their actions!" Which isn't the case. What we HAVE been sayin is that there are times where someone's personal responsibility for their actions should be considered in relation to other contextual factors. That is being overly reductive.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

First, there is no such thing as a 'DNA proven child rapist-murderer.'

Bullshit. There is such a thing. But, you don't want to address it, do you? And you claim me as the one having the 'overly reductive' and 'dogmatic view'.....the cognitive dissonance exudes from your posts here....but, that's nothing new coming from those who love to pontificate on principle without addressing their role in any specific cases....would that be 'overly reductive' to you?

I will table this for now to allow you to explain this in the next post in response to my question below.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

You on the other hand, have openly admitted that you care very little about the specifics and would always and forever hold individuals completely responsible for their actions regardless of the specifics, which would include but not be limited to (I assume) whether the person had any real idea of what they were doing or not.

Oh, I am the one asking for YOU to comment on your general predisposition AND on the specific circumstances that I give as examples--of which you are not doing--probably claiming some bullshit about 'strawman argument' without once really addressing the points in the issue--generally or specifically. General predispositions such as: Do you think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility? I'll see if you address that one.

No but addressing ONLY personal responsibility is equally unsustainable.

Quote Kerry:

Or, specific circumstances such as: Do you think that a person with an IQ of 61 can have an understanding of the consequences of their actions?

I have addressed this one but you seem to not finish reading someone's post before you reply to it. This indicates that you are not really interested in having a discussion. That you are holding on to a DOGMATC opinion or view.

Quote Kerry:Just as another interesting specific that I just thought up: If you don't think that a person with an IQ of 61 can ever understand the consequences of their actions, do you think that they should have the right to vote (do you think they would vote Democratic?...8^)....)?

A good question but a red herring in this particular conversation. I would be more than willing to discuss this elsewhere.

Quote Kerry:Not a 'strawman argument'--that's me trying to probe the extent of how far YOU would go in exonerating the actions of any person for anything if their IQ is to be determined as being 61......

Correct because these were questions rather than false statements about people's positions.

Quote Kerry:I would still have them executed if they were DNA-proven to have raped and murdered a child.....

This seems to clarify my previous question. I misunderstood your turn of phrase.

Quote Kerry:and, if this person with an IQ of 61 sought another person out to get back at them for snitching on them, they have some cognitive compacity to plan their actions, do they not? Now, how they carried out the murder could, also, factor into how I would judge it--and 'we' don't have enough of that information, do 'we'? But, I am also looking for just how far your position on the death penalty, or any punishment vs. other means to 'humanely address crime', is in general--and to what extent that applies to any potential specific circumstance--especially, considering any 'personal responsibility' that I think is necessary in maintaining a civil society. Or, is that 'overly reductive' to you--and, of course, 'you' don't want to be 'overly reductive', do you? But, then, how that plays into any 'dogmatic view' from you then comes out, doesn't it? Especially on any part of you not wanting to describe what you mean--and how far you mean it....and, I realize how people with 'dogmatic viewpoints' really don't want to be responsible for too many 'specifics' in any issue--and you are no exception to that observation, yet.....

Again ASKING QUESTIONS is not a strawman or overly reductive because it allows us to posit our own positions but that is not how you opened your engagement with this thread.

Quote Kerry:

I'll split this up...

On to the next then.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:
Quote Kerry:

But, when it comes to 'societal outcomes' vs. 'individual outcomes', who, or what, are you giving the credit and authority to make such distinctions? And, what justifies in your mind a 'societal outcome' that doesn't have an 'individual component'? If you ignore the individual components to every societal issue, then you do position yourself to claim such things as being for 'rehabilitating the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' as you are all for 'prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law the hate criminal'--no matter how horrendous and heinous the specifics of the crime may be....so, I don't see that as endorsing 'personal responsibility'.....

Now you are arguing a position that no one here has taken. This is you talking against your false description of your generic "liberal from thomland" and the strawman position that none of us has taken. If you read my post, I never made a distinction between a "societal outcome" and an "individual outcome." Rather, I said only "outcome" which always and forever will have both societal and individual causes. My statement and position was that liberals, by and large, are concerned with having a conversation about the relative wieght between the two in every circumstance and that our decisions must be based on this.

I don't know what your position on 'personal responsibility' is in any case--I get the idea that you lean towards it not being applied in the case of a person with an IQ of 61. I have proposed that no civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility. You've made no comment whatsoever on how you see civil society being maintained--with or without personal responsibility--nor what 'personal responsibility' actually entails in your viewpoint. Just a lot of slurs on my viewpoint without really qualifying your own position or remarks other than by some rather vague accusations having something to do with being 'overly reductive' and 'dogmatic' (again, without explaining what you mean)--another typical tactic used oftentimes by those of the so-called 'liberal persuasion' in thomland.....and, of course, if that doesn't work, resort to the accusation of 'strawman argument' without explaining that one, either.....

Actually, I have now made two statements to that effect. You simply are not comprehending them or choosing to ignore it. Civil society can only be maintained by a critical and deliberative engagement with the individual and social causes of ALL outcomes - not just criminal but all outcomes. Additionally, I have been very clear since my very first post how I have felt about the personal responsbility of someone with the IQ of 61 - that isn't enough information to base a decision on. Nothing I have said has been vague.

Quote Kerry:What do you mean by 'societal and individual causes' and their 'relative weight'? Which one in a civil society is to hold precedence--and why? Especially considering that I don't think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility--that's why I think that people should be held personally responsible for their actions. But, you don't have to fret too much about that because I, also, think that personal responsibility is tied into the political access (and priority) of individual rights being applied as extensively as they can and maintain a civil society (and do believe that most people given themselves the freedom to consider that prospect can come up with reasonable and rational extents to such conditions--just like in a jury trial)--and I give a whole lot of leeway (probably more than most 'conservatives') in defining that (but it doesn't include fetal brain sucking and skull crushing right before birth even if it does include the mother being allowed to abort that fetus for any, or no apparent, reason at all before fetal viability).

I provide a pretty clear example of what I mean but it seems you did not read the whole post before you responded to it... A significant problem when attempting to actual ascertain what someone believes. The relative weight of causal factors would be situation specific. You could not come up with a fixed formula for all of civil societies concerns. I have been pretty clear on this point as well, saying several times that specifics matter.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

Of course, this too might be a simplistic view of what we are concerned with because it also has to do with "locus of control" - who or what has control or not over the causal factor. For example, a intellectual disability is most certainly an individual contributing factor but it would be incorrect to say that the individual actually had control over that factor. Rather it is an individual causal factor which they had no control over.

So what? That doesn't address the more specific question: Can a person with an IQ of 61 understand the consequences of their actions in any circumstance? And, I've explained to you on the previous post how that can be considered.....

I have already addressed this several times. In fact, I addressed it in my first post in this thread before you even entered the conversation. Do you fucking read anything people type?

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

However, one might imagine a different scenario where say the intellectual disability was autism that was caused by the common use of mercury and other chemicals in vaccinations that are required by law (science is still out on this but evidence is strongly suggestive that this is contributing factor). Then is that a individual or a societal cause? Did the individual (as a month old infant) or soceity (which knowingly subjects infants to a causal factor for autism) have more culpibility in a crime that individual may have committed as a result of their disability? Is the solution to this problem to execute said individual (and all other individuals subject to the same chain of events and causal factors) or perhaps revisit the use of mercury and other harmful chemicals in vaccinations?

I think that you are just intentionally confusing the issue now--are you being 'overly generalistic'? No matter what the disability, the question still becomes: Can that person in whatever state that they are in understand the consequences of their actions? The issues about whether or not they have been exposed to neurotoxins--and whether or not 'society' caused that--is, again, secondary to the primary point: Can that person in whatever state that they are in understand the consequences of their actions?

I don't believe it is secondary.

Quote Kerry:

On the abortion thread, there was a different example of this--and it was an example of how I see the 'politically correct' more proned to try to assign 'triumphant victimhood status' to such people than ever acknowledge how personal responsiblity fits into a civil society. And, it was about a person exposed to a neurotoxin--but, this time, it was self-induced--alcohol. And, this was presented to me as a true story and knowing how this 'system' functions, I don't doubt it. It is a story about two drunks that presented to an ER in New York City that decided to leave against medical advice. The first drunk walked out of the hospital and got ran over in the street and killed. His family got word of what happened and sued the hospital, the ER doctor, and the ER company--and won the lawsuit. Then, in the same ER with the same ER doctor, another drunk presented and tried to leave. Remembering what happened in the first malpractice case, the ER doctor this time tied the drunk down and drugged him to force him to stay. That drunk sued everyone for being kept against his will--and won. The ER doctor, sensing that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't and feeling trapped by such a predicament, complained vehemently to the hospital and his ER company about being put into such a position--and was told to go to anger management classes. The drunks, either way, had 'triumphant victimhood status' and, as such, was exonerated from any responsibility for their actions despite how limited and constrained that those made responsible for those drunks' activities were made to be. And, in such a 'triumphant victimhood status', the drunks had no personal responsibility for their actions--apparently not in even taking the choice about being drunk and considering how that could harm oneself. How can an ER doctor get out of such a predicament.

Have the drunk person sign a wavier and then let them walk out the door.

Quote Kerry:Well, as the real world indicates, when it is damned if you do and damned if you don't, just make sure that you are on the side of the one doing the damning. In these cases, there are those that can confine the drunks against their will--the police. And, if the ER personnel see that drunk trying to leave (and that's a big IF--sometimes they just sneak out--and ER's aren't prisons), then confront the drunk that, as soon as they step out of that ER door, you are going to have them arrested by the police for public intoxication. And, guess what? In every case, the drunk will stay. Are they 'understanding the consequences of their actions' at that point--even as drunk? Now, how much of a civil society can 'we' maintain without personal responsibility....

Do me a favor and link some articles for these two instances. I would love to have some hard evidence that this truly is the case or is it just a fun little thought experiment that isn't really based in reality?

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

In short, SPECIFICS MATTER.

Yes, but do your GENERAL SPECIFICS preempt the PARTICULAR SPECIFICS that involve personal responsibility in such cases--as that person understanding the consequences of their actions? Whether drunk--or with an IQ of 61? I don't think that your GENERAL SPECIFICS do....not in every PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE--including a person with an IQ of 61 murdering another....

You've lost me here. "General specifics" is an oxymoron so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

The rest of your statement here is a red herring/strawman. YOU were the one that brought up convicting a hate criminal and acquiting a "DNA-proven child rapist/murder" (which still does not exist), not me.

Of course, they're a strawman if you say so, right? Even though you don't even have to explain how......I've explained why I don't think that a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer represents a strawman argument because it takes in how much YOU consider 'social issues' over 'individual behavior' AND 'personal responsibility'......same goes with hate criminals because, as my past discussions have shown, those who would rehabilitate a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law a 'hate criminal'--and would do so because of what they devise to be its social consequences regardless of any individual insult--or individual issues--at hand, and regardless of how premeditated and heinous any other crime would be. As I've said, that doesn't represent 'personal responsibility' to me....can you maintain a civil society without personal responsibility?

It's a strawman because you are still presenting arguments against a position that I, nor anyone else in this thread, took. You never posited a scenario regarding a child rapist and a hate criminal and asked us what we thought. You ASSUMED you knew our position and then started arguing against the assumption and you are continuing to do so.

I'll have to wrap up later....

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

You believe that societal factors should not be accounted for in any circumstance.

No. I don't believe any allocation of the so-called 'societal factors' should ever preempt the individual consequences, nor the personal responsibility, of any act against another. And, if there are to be 'societal factors' involved, handle those in Congress--don't try to mediate the severity of the crime in court with them. I don't care if a person has had a hard life, has been exposed to neurotoxins when growing up, is drugged, and has an IQ of 61, if they rape and murder a child and can be DNA-proven to have done so, I think they ought to be executed.

So you deny my statement and then confirm it? lol... You are basically saying exactly what I just said.

Quote Kerry:And, I know of exactly a case where someone raped and murdered a 9 year old girl, dumped her body in a trash bin, got convicted of it with DNA proof, and was able to stay off an execution (even in the state of Texas--but this was Austin where this happened) claiming to have been 'drugged' at the time (ah, yes, the 'victimhood triumphancy' even reaches to DNA-proven child rapist-murderers that don't have to be personally responsible for their actions....). And, I know of this issue because that person got out of prison in 9 years (probably to make more room for federally mandated sentences for non-violent drug users)--and tried to move into a town that I worked in--with the community openly and vocally voicing their disagreements about this person being in their town at all (that person did get put back into prison in a short amount of time over another issue).

Gonna provide evidence for any of these claims?

Quote Kerry:I do not believe 'societal factors' do, or should, preempt personal responsibility. I don't think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility....

This is exactly what I said. You do not believe societal factors should be accounted for in any outcome. You chalk it all up to personal responsibility.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

I believe that many things that happen in a civil society are not only the outcome of but also REQUIRE collective action.

You mean collective action preempts personal responsibility in some attempt in maintaining a civil society? How so? Let's see:

Example: systemic racism REQUIRES collective action and investment. This is an outcome that CANNOT be achieved by an individual.

Quote Kerry:
Quote ah2:

I also believe in theories of nominalism, partial agency, the structural limitations and possibilities of language, the socially structuring capacity of discourse and a number of other things that would take me too long to explain to you here. Simply put, there is relatively little if nothing that people do completely "individually."

Ah, so you believe in NO personal reponsibility, is that correct? Just like I thought.

Now you are just being dishonest. I am done. Pretty clear that you can't have a logical conversation. You are a waste of time.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Look, the fact of the matter is, there is no definitional ambguity in the phrase 'no personal responsibility in any action.'

There is ambiguity in how YOU and your comrades see 'personal responsibility' vs. how I understand it--and it's prerequisite and priority in a civil society, also. You claim some sort of responsibility--but, you tamper it with vague claims on 'social causes' without ever explaining how, or when, if ever, personal responsibility takes precedence (especially in a civil society). So, while there is no such ambiguity in the phrase 'no personal responsibility in any action', there is ambiguity in how you and your comrades see 'personal responsibility in any action'. So, once again, the quotes. Got that?

Quote ah2:

If you were advancing an argument it would be your responsibility to define it within your text to make it coherent.

I understand it. I don't think that you do. And, even with my examples, I can't get you to understand it. I think that you are ignoring my point (so, I still put it in quotes)....but, we'll see:

Quote ah2:

It is pretty clear that you were attempting to posit this as a pseudo quote. It was a strawman. Period.

Oh, 'period' (Notice I put that in quotes)? Sounds pretty 'definite' from someone who wants to lay vague claims of 'social causes' to smother 'personal responsibility'.....the point still is that I don't see you understanding either 'personal responsibility in action' nor its necessity in promoting a civil society. And, despite your lame attempt at acknowledging responsibility (is it 'personal'?), you and your comrades offer only 'no personal responsibility in any action'--or give me one example where you do offer 'personal responsibility in any action' without trying to temper it in vague claims of 'social causes' that, once again, do NOT delineate how you pick out the 'personal responsibility' from the 'social causes'. The very way that you vaguely describe this issue--including your 'social causes'--is, I truly believe, part of the problem with American society. It creates the damned if you do and damned if you don't scenarios involving victimhood triumphancy in such dichotomies as those two drunks leaving an ER in New York City--and being able to sue whether they leave and end up in harm or are forced to stay against their (now 'drunken') will (still absent any sense of 'personal responsibility' either way).....

Quote ah2:

Overly reductive - you were intentionally leaving massive amounts of information and nuance out of your representation of the ideas typically presented by liberals in this particular debate.

Well, at the risk of being labelled 'overly reductive', I did ask you if you could ever see a person with the IQ of 61 as being personally responsible--and understanding of the consequences of their actions. The claim that I am 'leaving massive amounts of information and nuance out' is more your way of skirting an honest response on your part with that question. You can put 'massive amounts of information and nuance' in any answer you want--but, the question still becomes: Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions? Can you address that question specifically? And, we''ll see how rigid in 'the cause' you are....

I know how liberals love to talk in platitudes with each other without sensing any need to apply that in any particular case or circumstance--and you are no different in that respect, yet (conservatives can do the same--and I argue with the likes of Capital and workingman when I see it). That's what gets the liberals here to be complacent with near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing (probably as long as D_NATURED does it or someone else of 'authority' is responsible for witnessing it)--but, castigate me in feigned disgust when I claimed that a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer ought to be executed in the most extreme method possible (I came up with cutting his dick off, cramming it down his throat, sticking a hot rod up his ass, and, then, having him slowly bleed to death before God and country...but that was so distasteful to the liberals' tender sense of humanity as they all were complacent with how a fetus near birth could be treated--of course, treating the fetus psychologically like every one in war treats their enemy--as 'inhuman', a 'parasite', a 'piece of tissue'....). It even got to the point of me asking liberals if they ever were a in position to have to make a responsible decision--and be judged, accordingly.....same goes with you, ah1...otherwise, in a damned if you do and damned if you don't world, you're right in there in a position to be able to do the damning, aren't you? On anyone's actions that don't claim your 'social causes'--best enacted as 'victimhood triumphancy'.....

Quote ah2:

dogmatic view - an opinion or thought based in prescribeddoctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.

And, what proves a viewpoint as being 'dogmatic'? Why, its inability to apply to every circumstance and situation......just like your excuse of 'social causes' preempting 'personal responsibility' with you saying some form of 'collective action' is best for a 'civil society' (look at all those quotes). Well, war is a 'collective action cause'--how do you eliminate its possibility in 'social causes' WITHOUT considering individual rights--and personal responsibility? So, now, ah2, speak for yourself. Can you really have a civil society without personal responsibilty? Can a person with an IQ of 61 ever be considered to be personally responsible--and understanding of the consequences of their actions? And, now that I'm thinking about it, can you actually 'rehabilitate' anyone that doesn't eventually take personal responsibility for their actions? Or, just claim it in liberal platitudes? Dogmatic liberal platitudes....

And, most of the rest of your post is an avoidance tactic--and bullshit. You don't need proof. You're right in there with the liberal dogmatic platitudes, aren't you? First, you said there was no such thing as a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer. Then, you said you were against them being executed. Are you for them being 'rehabilitated' instead of 'punished'? Are you for near birth fetal brain sucking and skull crushing if the mother wants it? Are you for hate criminals being prosecuted, and punished, to the fullest extent of the law? Can't answer those specific questions openly and honestly at this point, can you? Maybe some Kumbaya clan members can come in and relieve you from your difficulties....

Quote ah2:

This is something that can be evaluated by a psychologist.

Ah, yes, here it comes--the appealing to authority without expressing any thoughts on your own. Isn't that a logical fallacy? You don't even see, and can't even acknowledge, your own dogmatic influences, can you? But, the question still is: Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions? If not, just like the issue with capital punishment, what are you arguing about? It's just another dogmatic claim on your part being passed off as if it were a valid, and complete, judgment--when you see no need to apply it to any specific circumstance and respond, accordingly.....proving its dogmatic characteristics....but, you don't even see that, do you?

Maybe some can see why the only person that Jesus ever spoke against was the hypocrite.....but, then, maybe not....

Quote ah2:

Don't pretend you know what other people think and say "you all think blah blah blah and you're wrong."

I don't know what other people think. And, despite my directly asking you, obviously, you aren't going to tell me what you think---when it comes to specific questioning and specific circumstances, hypocrites in dogma seldom can tell another what they think because they can't pin it in a way that saves their dogmatic platitudes, can they? And, since you and your comrades can give no comment on what does constitute to you a proper 'personal responsibility in any action', I will conclude that you claim that there needs to be 'no personal responsibility in any action'. I can be wrong in that assessment--I realize one exception would disprove its validity. But, you haven't even offered that.....so, while it is still in quotes because I can't 'read your mind', it's still out there as valid because you haven't offered any exception, anyway--other than those tampered by your overriding claim on 'social causes' (even war?)--which is the very contradiction to 'personal responsibility'. And, once again, I don't think that a civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility.....

Quote ah2:

To be honest, I could give a shit about what DRC said in a different thread.

Then, what do YOU say--because, as I've said, I see all those examples as being pertinent to this point of crime, punishment, and judging human behavior.....and applying personal responsibility....

Quote ah2:

Again ASKING QUESTIONS is not a strawman or overly reductive because it allows us to posit our own positions but that is not how you opened your engagement with this thread.

I've asked several questions to you. Have you answered one of them? Other than applying the logical fallacy of appealing to authority as 'the answer' and claiming some vague issues on 'social causes', I don't see those answers.....you could start with: Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions? Maybe you could add: Do you see anyone personally responsible for their actions? How? And, if so, do you have an example of what you mean? If not, what's the point of any right, any choice, any decision, by any one? Or, is it all 'pre-determined'--and, then, only 'understood by those who claim to be an authority'? Without you or anyone, personally, understanding any of it--so, how could you understand the consequences of your actions? Ever....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:

Actually, I have now made two statements to that effect. You simply are not comprehending them or choosing to ignore it. Civil society can only be maintained by a critical and deliberative engagement with the individual and social causes of ALL outcomes - not just criminal but all outcomes.

Who's making this 'critical and deliberate engagement' assessment on the 'individual and social causes'--and what criteria are they using to do so? Are you back to appealing to authority--or, say, can any person in a jury make the same assessment? Besides that, how do you get to ALL outcomes without assessing ANY action? Really.....

Quote ah2:

Additionally, I have been very clear since my very first post how I have felt about the personal responsbility of someone with the IQ of 61 - that isn't enough information to base a decision on. Nothing I have said has been vague.

No, you have been quite evasive in directly answering the question: Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions? You have made the logical fallacy (very common with your comrades) of appealing to authority (ie. 'the psychologist')--but you haven't voiced your own opinion with respect to that question, have you? Are you so bound by 'social causes' that you don't have a personal opinion? And, wouldn't being bound by such 'social causes' that prevent you from having a personal opinion look exactly like a dogmatic viewpoint? I think so.....

Quote ah2:

The relative weight of causal factors would be situation specific.

The question still is: Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions? If you can't see that, situations won't matter.....unless, once again, your real claim is that personal responsibility doesn't count in any action. It's all tampered by 'social causes'. Which, once again, how do 'social causes' even related to a 'collective action' prevent, on their own, those very causes and actions being expressed by war WITHOUT a consideration of individual rights--and personal responsibility--superseding them? Do you see that point--or, are you too entrenched in your dogma to recognize it?

I don't think that any civil society can be maintained without personal responsibility.

Quote ah2:

You could not come up with a fixed formula for all of civil societies concerns.

But, my question really becomes: Can you remove personal responsibility in all actions and still have a civil society? Can you remove all personal responsibility required by a civil society by excusing it with claims of 'social causes' and still maintain a civil society? I don't think that you can. You claim a civil society has concerns that, somehow, supersede personal responsibility. And, what concerns those are, you have been quite vague in describing--especially in using them against the pressing priority, and requirement of, personal responsibility to maintain that social civility. I've even given you an example of how a 'collective action' with 'social causes' could end up in uncivil action--war. And, it does so by REMOVING the priority of individual rights and personal responsibility in the society. How do you recover from such an option WITHOUT individual rights and personal responsibility? Or, is your so-called 'answer' back to the logical fallacy of appealing to authority? Perhaps have the military 'force it on you'.....that's 'civil'....

Quote ah2:

Have the drunk person sign a wavier and then let them walk out the door.

Well, if that drunk isn't responsible for, nor able to understand the consequences of, his actions (the whole point about being able to sue if allowed to leave and gets killed by a car), how is that drunk going to 'responsibly' sign a waiver? But, the ER can't make him stay. Thus, the 'victimhood triumphancy'--that drunk's got it made either way without any sense of personal responsibility (being able to damn either way in a damned if you do and damned if you don't set up). But, does that drunk understand the consequences of his actions--even drunk? Confront the drunk with the option of having the police confine him and arrest him if he walks out the door--and the drunk understands. Which was my point. Despite the bleeding heart liberals' claim that the drunk 'didn't know what he was doing' (probably like your claim with the one with an IQ of 61, right?), you could get the drunk to understand the consequences of his actions.

And, the liberals do love to create a damned if you do and damned if you don't world that they can accuse others with. After all, they are better at hypocritically accusing and judging a case--probably claiming some kind of 'social cause' that exonerates the one they offer 'victimhood triumphancy' to that removes any need to consider 'personal responsibility' with--but, they do so without placing themselves in the position of responsibly solving any situation they so readily accuse. And, I think that is part of the reason why you cannot directly and openly answer the question: Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions? You can't think of a response that would be in line with your liberal dogma and bias--other than the answer 'NO'--right? I'm not reading your mind--I am interpreting what you say--and don't say. And, sometimes, what you don't say, just like what you don't respond to, says more than what you do say....that would get to my other questions: Do you see anyone personally responsible for their actions? How? And, if so, do you have an example of what you mean? If not, what's the point of any right, any choice, any decision, by any one? I doubt that you can answer any of those and be consistent with your liberal dogma--and bias--can you? But, you sure can claim 'social causes' and 'collective actions' like you know what you are saying--without addressing them once against any of these questions. Can you? 'Victimhood triumphancy' means more to a liberal than 'personal responsibility' as a political power ploy. But, really, in line with such 'victimhood triumphant' accusations, do you think that a drunk getting by with accusing someone else of his behavior--whether he leaves or stays in the ER--is conducive to, and representative of, maintaining a civil society? Even if that drunk can be shown to have some understanding of the consequences of his actions--even drunk? I don't. You cannot maintain a civil society without personal responsibility....just like you can't maintain a democracy without individual rights....despite how much you appeal to 'social causes'--and have 'authority' determine what that entails.....

Quote ah2:

Do me a favor and link some articles for these two instances. I would love to have some hard evidence that this truly is the case or is it just a fun little thought experiment that isn't really based in reality?

I don't have the links--as I told you to begin with. A nurse in an ER I was working in was describing the case and, also as I said, as I know how this 'system' works, I didn't doubt its veracity. Your claim on needing a link before you can respond is, again, just another tactic of diversion on your part. Besides accusing me personally for who I am, ignoring much of what I say under some vague claim on 'communal causes', claiming to need 'more proof', accusing all of this as being a 'strawman argument', the next tactic I will see from you is claiming no need to respond at all.....and, again, tell me who has the 'dogmatic viewpoint' here?

Quote ah2:

"General specifics" is an oxymoron so I have no idea what you are talking about.

All your list of 'social causes' are 'general specifics'--you don't even apply them directly to this case even as you claim they are to tamper all personal responsibility. Not applying them directly to this case has you talk in the typical liberal platitudes of 'general specifics' (as long as they carry what you claim is a 'social cause', right?)--which, absent applying them to any 'particular specifics', is as prejudicial (dogmatic, hypocritical) on its own as anything it claims to 'solve' in using them to judge and determine 'particular specifics' (and, by the way, I would put race, gender, sexual disposition, religious positions, etc., all in that category of 'general specifics' that lend more to endorsing, than it does removing, prejudicial judgment in any 'particular specific' case without recognizing and judging those specifics on their own--especially in guaging the priority of personal responsibility maintaining any civil society).

Quote ah2:

It's a strawman because you are still presenting arguments against a position that I, nor anyone else in this thread, took.

But, you are indicating a priority of 'social causes' and 'collective actions' up against either 'individual actions' or 'personal responsibility', aren't you? You are actually even claiming they have more prescience to judging an action, or in establishing a civil society, than personal responsibility, don't you? So, my examples of what to do with a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer, sucking near birth fetal brains and near birth fetal skull crushing, acknowledgement of any form of personal responsibility in a person with an IQ of 61, having a drunk be able to accuse others in court for his actions and behavior (whether allowed to leave or forced to stay), etc., are all what I see as relating to this issue of 'social causes' and 'personal responsibility'. And, I in any of them, I don't see 'social causes' addressing them nearly as completely and effectively as considering it in light of personal responsibility would--especially if you are doing it in favor of a civil society. Especially if you use my other example--war--as a 'social cause' with a 'collective action' inconsiderate of 'individual rights' or 'personal responsibility'......

Quote ah2:

You never posited a scenario regarding a child rapist and a hate criminal and asked us what we thought.

It's been presented. Believe me. By the way, what is it that you do think? All I've seen with respect to the primary question (Could you ever see a person with an IQ of 61 being personally responsible for any of their actions?) is some vague (perhaps 'social causing' and 'collectively acting') appeal to authority without you directly addressing that question--or any of the other issues that I brought up. Wonder why.....

You last post is basically useless. You do say this:

Quote ah2:

Now you are just being dishonest. I am done. Pretty clear that you can't have a logical conversation. You are a waste of time.

How predictable......haven't you heard that the 'liberal cause' is 'above rational thought' yet, ah2? Has a 'new paradigm' with it? But, even with that assertion, the claim becomes how 'logical and rational' your stand is, doesn't it? No matter how much you ignore evaluating your position to any specific question or claim......that's 'beneath your logic', isn't it? And, if that doesn't work, well, there's always that 'new communal paradigm' that is 'above all rational and logical thought' to go by.....dogmatically claiming 'social causes' and 'collective actions' tampering any and all 'individual rights' and 'personal responsibility' as if, without the latter premises even in a democratic government, 'we' can have a 'civil society'.....again, I doubt that to its core.....and I offer war as representing 'social causes with collective actions' inconsiderate of 'individual rights' and 'personal responsibility' as my proof.....my rational and logical proof....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system