PzKfW IVe
Banned
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,845
- Reaction score
- 289
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yes. It presents a theory; it does not show causation.Uh, last link. Did you look at it?
Yes. It presents a theory; it does not show causation.Uh, last link. Did you look at it?
If you believe in justice then you understand the "insanity" defense, and the "too young" defense, and the "developmentally disabled defense. If you believe in punishment then you don't. To the former a person's mental state is taken into account, to the latter it's: "Do the crime do the time/die." It's really a question how high up the morality scale you are. Justice folks are higher up the scale than punishment folks.
Yes. It presents a theory; it does not show causation.
No... I am going to wait for you to show the necessary relationship between the things you claim to follow from one another.As I suspected - you are simply going to ignore whatever I present...
No... I am going to wait for you to show the necessary relationship between the things you claim to follow from one another.
"Necessary relationship", not theory.
You apparently do not understand the concept of "necessary relationship" and the difference betwen causation and correlation.The entire definition of the brutalization theory is that is establishes the link between executing people that leads to an increase in homicide in society. The link I posted referred to studies conducted that show this relationship of causation.
What was his motive?
Supporter of the gold standard, pro-life, clear grudge against the left, supporter of that crazy NWO **** those Ruby Ridge people supported...
I think if we're not going to declare him "insane" then it's clear where he stood on the political scale.
You apparently do not understand the concept of "necessary relationship" and the difference betwen causation and correlation.
Either that, or you -do- understand them, know you cannot show either, and thusly try to shovel BS.
he just needs killin
and if he is nutso all a better reason-he's like a mad dog
You apparently do not understand the concept of "necessary relationship" and the difference betwen causation and correlation.
Either that, or you -do- understand them, know you cannot show either, and thusly try to shovel BS.
The effect must follow from the supposed cause; the supposed cause must bring the effect, there is no possible cause for the effect than the supposed cause.How do you define "necessary?"
Not really the concern. She claimed cause anf effect; I want her to show the necessary relationship.More importantly, it probably is not reasonable to hold policy makers and managers (government, business, etc.) to the rigorous standard of causation.
Not really the concern. She claimed cause anf effect; I want her to show the necessary relationship.
Wow. What is wrong with you people?
The guy is psychotic. Do you understand what psychotic means? Please read to the end before you call me an idiot. Thanks.
Psychotic means that he has no grasp on reality. He may have chosen to shoot Giffords because he believed she had secret CIA assassins planning to kill him. He may honestly believe something like that.
If you really believed that, if that were undeniably TRUE in your mind, would you not try to do something? You can't call the police - they're in on it. You can't tell your friends - you're surrounded by spies. All you can do is try to take out the controller of the operation. That would be Giffords.
Persecutory delusions are in common schizophrenia. Sometimes they can be very extreme. And while most schizophrenics are more of a danger to themselves than they are to others, some can become so delusional that they may be violent.
A person who is psychotic is genuinely not aware that they are psychotic. They often don't even remember anything that happened during the episode. Their brains are literally being eaten by the sheer power of the illness.
All of these hateful comments leads me to believe none of you really know anything about schizophrenia, or what you're talking about.
You're upset that since he has been deemed insane, you won't get to see him hang. You're sick.
I'm not saying he should just be given some anti-psychotics and set loose. He is obviously dangerous while psychotic, and he needs to be very closely monitored and kept out of society.
It's a shame, because there were indications he was mentally ill long ago. No one did anything about it. The longer you wait to deal with schizophrenia the worse it is - the more of your brain it's destroyed. Your chances of regaining functionality are much lower. Had this been addressed earlier, not only may he not have killed people and wounded Giffords, but he may have been able to live a somewhat normal life.
We have no idea whether he is a bad person. We have no idea if he's even aware he killed people and wounded Giffords, if he intended to, if he even understands what death is at the moment.
I'm sorry that ruins your desire to see some bloodshed, literal or metaphorical. Killing sick people who don't understand what they're doing is what we did in the Dark Ages.
That is an immature, sociopathic way to see reality.
Correct. Your assertion cannot be proven. Glad you understand that.As I'm sure you are already quite aware, how causation is established, and whether it can be proved or merely substantiated, depends on what you're talking about. Social cause can be substantiated, but not proven, as it is impossible to stick society in a lab.
Repeating what you said does not make what you said any more meaningful to my purpose that when you said it the first time.Actually, it is a highly relevant point. It is unreasonable to hold policy makers and managers to the standard...
Correct. Your assertion cannot be proven. Glad you understand that.
That won't get you to back away from it because it's something you want to believe, but that's on you.
I still want to see him dead.
As I suspected - you are simply going to ignore whatever I present without giving a reason (most of science we accept as true is still called theory) because you'd rather believe execution is a net positive. I don't know why I bother posting sources when I already know they will be ignored...
Yes.... because to be held accountable for a crime, regardless of what that crime is, you have to have the capacity to understand that what you did was a crime and that you are on trial for it.
Posting links to biased statistics and acting like you have proven causation is different than actually proving causation Mistress.
I can do a study on an issue and come up with 10 different results if there are no rules for how the stats are calculated so posting links to a website that fails to explain, in detail, how their numbers were derived is worth about as much as another person’s opinion.
One thing I have trouble with the insanity plea is that if he was truly insane wouldn't he have just came marching up to the crime scene waving his gun high and yelling loudly?
By keeping his weapon hid and not saying anything until he started shooting tells me he knew very well what he was doing was wrong.
At least you're honest.
And to be honest in return, people like you scare me more than people like him. Someone like Loughner is capable of relatively small-scale destruction, but people like that are capable of destroying entire societies.
Sanity doesn't imply ethics.
This is rich.
Why don’t you Google “societies without insane murderers” and throw up some more links to useless statistics to support your fear of people like me “destroying entire societies”?
Do you think Sharia Law is as evil as you think I am?