No. I am no psychologist. Are you?
I studied Acupuncture/herbalism and nutrition. In California we have an expanded scope of practice and are considered primary care providers with a minimum of 6 years of education.
Bachelors in psychology with minor in neuroscience, have the equivalent of a masters in psychology course work, and am working on my PhD thesis. After wards I intend to do complete a clinical neuropsychology residency. So kind of. I'm not like some of my fellow students who dismiss eastern medicine, but your credentials don't on their own demonstrate insight into mental illness.
However, I have an organic neurological condition and know a lot about the biology and physiology of the brain, if less about the social sciences which are comparatively more subjective and prone to vast differences in opinion, despite scientific inquiry and statistical studies.
They are indeed less objective, there are a lot more variables involved in cognitive neuroscience.
Fine. Then killing you child is not necessarily proof of an organic mental illness that would suggest other than being accountable for ones own actions....at least not that fact alone. If its not hard wired, then failing to have this compassion is not a problem with the hard wiring. I may not have taken psychology but I do understand logic. If its not hardwired then its not necessarily a problem with the hardware.
That wasn't the point of the particular statement I made and which you were responding to. Humans are not altruistically wired. Family members are wired to ensure each others survival. It is demonstrable on many levels, and no where is this drive stronger then in mother and child. Having the impulse to kill ones child indicates that the brain is not functioning correctly on some level, which may not be the same as organic brain disorder, but when the impulse is carried out it is likely indicative of that.
Are you just trying to argue or does your previous statement actually support your holistic perspective? I mean, almost any position can be argued for if you are skilled enough.
Holistic? Says the acupuncturist to the neuroscientist.
You are more rational about this than narco who demonstrates bigotry and intolerance on this issue....bigotry can come in different forms. If you are intolerant of any position other than a narrow spectrum which is your own, that is bigotry, non-violent or not.
That actually is the definition of bigot, although the word is a pejorative that indicates racism. I am not intolerant of your views. I am intolerant of those who want to punish people physically, especially the weak. If it's just a view then fine, but if it leads to something like this occurring, say because of the way you vote then I'm pretty not OK with that. I assume your saying that the rapture is more rational, and I find that ludicrous. That poster is an imbecile, and the only really positive thing you can say about him is that he agrees with you. The Rapture isn't cogent, doesn't argue that efficiently, resorts to ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum instead of addressing points in my argument, and is more congruent with the definition of bigotry indicating intolerance of other races, creeds, or sexual orientation then me.
"
First of all I think you must be pretty religious and probably think all people have "rights"."
"
Stop spewing stupid religious crap and protecting human trash."
"
Don't be a dickhead and lump all Texans into the same batch....I live in Texas, it's a great state. " Doesn't really indicate bigotry, but I mean he's from Texas... JK I actually live in Texas right now. Well half kidding.
"
Shows to me at least, that those ass fucking perverted priestly types don't really believe in god anyways, if they did, they wouldn't be ass raping little boys (and girls) since it would mean damnation for them."
Obviously I have a mutual distaste for pedophiles, but his use of the word ass fucking indicates homophobia.
"
And who are these peace police who sit there and pass judgment against us for advocating justice, and yet trying to remove judgement against the one who stabs little boys or rapes women.....the rapist needs help and isnt even bad, but unlike the rapist the guy who wants justice is a fucking psychopath....so the aggressor becomes the victim in the mind of the peace police, and the protector becomes the bad guy if he uses any force.....its all backwards."
You aren't advocating justice, you are advocating beating up a mentally ill woman, lets get that strait. We aren't talking about rapists, and although they definitely should have to pay for the irreparable harm they cause. You aren't a psychopath you're just an American with simplistic opinions, and you aren't a protector. You want to beat up a mentally ill woman after the fact, who are you protecting? You are backwards indeed.
"
None of the compassion or excuses are used to describe those who would beat up a rapist, but all of it is used for the rapist or murderer himself....do you seriously not see the hypocrisy in such a position?"
I don't think you should be beat up for having the desire to brutalize someone, and I'm sure there is some explanation for why you have these desires. No I don't see the hypocrisy, but I don't have third person perspective.
"
Unless you just arbitarily take the side who is rebelling against order and society.....but even if you are an Anarchist, sometimes society is right....drug laws and victimless crimes are fucking stupid, but the basics like dont go around stabbing and raping people makes a lot of sense....these are values we should maintain even in the most progressive and egalitarian societies...and if you cant follow those rules then you are incapable of meeting the social contract and have no right to live in that society. I dont see any value in becoming permissive of these behaviors."
Dude, America is not the center of the world, and some countries are heavy on the law and order, while others try to rehabilitate criminals. No one advocates allowing people to stab others, or rape people. I don't consider myself an anarchist, but I've heard some pretty respectable intellectuals describe themselves as such, and on a micro level some of the anarcho-comunes that developed during the 1936 Spanish Civil war indicate that it isn't as chaotic as some think. That's nice, I don't see any value in beating up mentally ill women, or capital punishment.
"
The only time I would not think that somebody is morally accountable would be if they didnt know what they were doing, if they were not in control of their own actions (Hypnosis or brainwashing?), or if they were too mentally compromised to understand the implication or their actions or to understand why what they are doing is wrong....somebody who knows enough to know that murder is wrong, especially murdering an infant, and who is intelligent enough to understand that death is permanant, and wasnt hallucinating that the child was a wild dog or something due to being completely divorced from reality....."
Well you clearly have tendentious feelings about free will. I feel that if you tried to falsify that paradigm that you would be wildly successful, but you would have to overcome you bias to do it sincerely.
"
if she just had a hard life, and was moody and high as a kite...not that doest cut it. You are still responsible. I dont care if your uncle raped you. I dont care if you saw horrors in war time. I dont care if you were picked on as a child or your dad beat you up....you know enough to understand that killing is wrong and permanent and that stabbing causes pain and death, something that you wouldnt want to happen to yourself...then you are fucking accountable and you have no rights anymore."
Your sympathy lies with the victim, that's somewhat understandable. Still, even death row inmates have rights. Just because they don't have the ability to act civilized doesn't mean that we don't.
"
However, I do feel differently about victims attacking their aggressors....while I dont think that murdering your rapist step father is by any means acceptable, I think its a lot more acceptable comparatively than murdering some innocent child or a random bystander to steal his wallet. The moral implications are different, though its not necessarily the best way to deal with something....a child who is afraid because of abuse and lashes out is hardly the same as a parent who abuses his child without good cause.....but if the child grows up to harm innocent third parties, as in NOT the person responsible for the suffering, then that is not an excuse.
"
Yea, it's because you can identify with their motives, and you are certain that they can be rehabilitated with little risk of re-offense. You still haven't given a good argument as to why our criminal justice system is ideal, effective, and morally just. I have partially given you a counter argument though I can't comment on it qualitatively.
"
Thats how I see it anyway."
We see the world as we are, not as it is." The Talmud
To the Rapture, again your a tool.
