(S)he's a liar! No, wait, (S)he's a true believer!

[Claire Swazey]

Hang on - Napoleon was a professed Catholic as, I think Hitler was too. Pagan tribes may believe in gods and rocks but that is still 'religious'. A barbarian tribe that sacrifices babies to placate a god is being "religious".



But your post begs the question - you assume without proof that your underpinning concept of "respect and fair treatment" is some sort of axiomatic status. What is fair treatment for a child molester? What is "respect" for someone who believes it is OK to enslave people or to steal from them?

Where does your "basic humane" concept come from?

I am not disagreeing with you, per se, just seeking wider explanation.

You are on a roll today. Some amazingly excellent posts.

I am not sure about the basic humane concept except that the 8th amendment (and this appears elsewhere, too) about "cruel and unusual punishment" may be a criterion.

Now, don't tell me. Let me guess. You're going to say "how do we know what truly constitutes crue and unusual punishment?"

Yes, but you know I go for the facile answers and leave the really brainy stuff to you, right?

 

[Gottabrain]

Hang on - Napoleon was a professed Catholic as, I think Hitler was too. Pagan tribes may believe in gods and rocks but that is still 'religious'. A barbarian tribe that sacrifices babies to placate a god is being "religious".

Napoleon was not religious, nor was any of his family. Fascinating discussion about Napoleon manipulating others because of his disdain for their religious beliefs is here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090903212549AAVjA34

Hitler's religious beliefs are a matter of dispute, I'll give you that. On one hand, he claimed his actions were ordained by God when speaking to crowds, but he also completely stopped participating in the Catholic church or any other since he was a young boy. It appears he only said what he thought would make him appear acceptable to others. Hitler's mother was Jewish. One popular theory is that Hitler was motivated by his hatred and resentment for the religion of Judaism and all religions.

Throughout history, "pillage and plunder" was primarily about status and the gaining of women, slaves and goods to enhance a tribe or people's survival - religion was often secondary as a motive.

Sure, lots of barbarian tribes had pagan religions, but from what we know of the Germanic tribes, they weren't guided by any central concept of religion or practice.

References:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0820624.html
http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=wars&FileName=wars_cimbrian.php

Mick, it's not like you to make statements of opinions like that which are contradicted by facts. I am disappoint , I normally love debating with you. Now how about some good, factual arguments, please?

But your post begs the question - you assume without proof that your underpinning concept of "respect and fair treatment" is some sort of axiomatic status. What is fair treatment for a child molester? What is "respect" for someone who believes it is OK to enslave people or to steal from them?

Where does your "basic humane" concept come from?

I am not disagreeing with you, per se, just seeking wider explanation.

You've reversed my statement as an axiomatic statement, i.e., if we have an overriding concept that if we are raised to treat others fairly and respectfully, then all will do so. That's not exactly what I said, but I like the way you reversed it and it's close enough. Good fodder for discussion.

Of course it's not a cureall. People cannot be trusted to blindly follow any set of rules.

They need to be taught to think with concepts of fairness, justice and be valued for their skills and contributions. You know, Plato's ideal society sort of thing. The majority try to do the right thing and are simply misled.

It never applies to ALL.

The real question is, "How do we treat criminals who insist on being abusive no matter what the system is?"

I don't have any magic answers. You know that.

You mention child abusers. Mick, I'm in a unique situation of being in close contact with a person who has this intention as an obsession but has not committed the crime, probably due entirely to my discover of his secret and my constant reminding him how criminal it is and intervening. I'll call him "Joe". I've been trying to resolve this issue with Joe for years. Bloody time consuming and frustrating! And YES, he's also a psychiatric patient - I successfully made him go over a year ago (he lied about seeing the psych prior to that), but the psych does not use drugs as yet and is still puzzled what is wrong with him and how to address it. "Joe" has been going through brain scans and cognitive tests and things all that time, too. No results of any kind from the psych... Joe just lies to him. Except ONCE.

Talking to Joe doesn't help. He is a chronic lyer, hider, deceptive and manipulative. He does not respond to cognitive therapies of any kind. But wow! Can he go on and on how great he feels and how his life has changed and how successful these therapies are! Yet turn around and try to subvert some young person the next day. I'm sick of babysitting, and with no crime committed YET, the police aren't the least bit interested.

But behavioural conditioning DOES work.

There is NOTHING in his background to have caused him to be this way. He has no conscience. He does what he feels. Sometimes he feels like doing good things, sometimes he feels like doing bad things. Fortunately, he has SOME fear or respect for authority as well as fear of public humiliation if his secret was disclosed.

I BELIEVE I have finally found a workable way of keeping him harmless and possibly helping him without consuming all my time. When he's acting nutty, worked up, he is sent to his room for the night (frig, food, toilet and comforts provided). In the beginning, his daughter & I locked the room. He is now in the habit so it is not necessary and we don't do it anymore unless he's acting particularly nutty.

He has also been cut off from anyone he can manipulate as a sympathetic ally. These have been informed of his real motives and the truth of what he does. It wasn't easy, he's an amazing liar because he actually seems to believe his lies at the time he says them or at least has no concept that lying or deception is wrong. Convincing anyone otherwise is hard work. What a sweet guy! Um.... NO.

And all week long, he goes to group 12-step sessions. Sometimes three times a day.
So he has a social outlet and the concepts are beat into his brain every day of the week. Miss a day or two and he goes back to being deceptive and manipulative, sneaky pervert destructive person.

He works as well, but his work people already know him well enough to stay away from him, so no worries there.

So far, so good.

Yeh, he's nuts. He'd qualify as a 2-1/2 percenter for sure. No soul, no conscience. Really, really weird but fascinating, too. Oh, and all possible health issues of every kind have been explored. Brain scans, blood tests, etc. all show nothing, too.

Other societies have put these sort of people to death, locked them up, excommunicated them, all sorts of things.

What an irony that positive brainwashing (12 step 12 step 12 step) and mild, humane restraint can actually work on a person like this but nothing else does. He ONLY responds to behaviour modification and positive messages constantly drummed into his brain. He is a bit afraid of the police - I don't use that much because I don't want him to lose that fear.

REMEMBER, "Joe" has not committed any sexual crimes against women or children. But he is completely capable of doing so and has bouts of violent destructiveness, which he hides.

Your comments, suggestions & feedback are welcome.

 

[Infinite]

Pure nonsense. This is yet another testament of faith.

Science is a philosophical endeavor based on the application of empirical methods to measurable phenomena. Science has no part with any phenomena which are deemed to lie outside of the realm of measure, e.g. theistic or metaphysical doctrines. Thus science has little to directly contribute relevant to such areas of human knowledge.

Attempts to extend materialist views beyond its appropriate realm of mensurable phenomena is simply another form of faith based belief system, as with any other religious doctrine. Attempts to identify such views as 'science' demonstrates the scientific ignorance of the advocate.

Heh! No, seriously, Bakes, tell me what you *really* mean. Its always good to see you revert back to type and apply . . .

Scientology 101: when confronted with undeniable facts and/or irrefutable logic, apply ad hom.

. . . cave me in, bro.

The difference between science and religion is that science can prove its statements or, when it cannot, quite openly describes the statement as a theory. Religion, on the other hand, cannot prove its statements but still describes them as true. Its not that long ago religion would have it that the Earth was the centre of the universe . . . so much for that metaphysical doctine, eh?

It is nonsense to say that science is limited only to the measurable because, if that were the case, science would not concern itself with that which it cannot prove. Rather than that, and using only a theory as its starting point, science has come up with, for example, a pocket-sized phone which has sufficient memory to contain an entire library, can take high definition photos and video, play music, receive and play television/radio broadcasts, plot a person's exact position on Earth, send/receive text, and make calls. A hundred years ago not much of its potential could be proved. Scientology, on the other hand, has an e-meter which it tries to tell the world can measure thought. (Of course, that depends on whether you accept Scientology is a religion)

Science doesn't need or welcome faith which is why those who rely on faith fear science. Which is a pity because, who knows, science may well prove some religious doctrine, its just taking the non-faith route.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Eeeehhhh....wellll...

It is true that religion relies on faith. I don't have a quibble with that.

But science, at times, is rife with theories that constantly get revised. Sometimes an element of faith creeps in. Not, I hasten to add, to the degree that you'd see with religions, but, well, I still think you're exaggerating.

 

[Infinite]

Eeeehhhh....wellll...

It is true that religion relies on faith. I don't have a quibble with that.

But science, at times, is rife with theories that constantly get revised. Sometimes an element of faith creeps in. Not, I hasten to add, to the degree that you'd see with religions, but, well, I still think you're exaggerating.

The fact that science is rife with theories that constantly get revised is another delimiter between it and religion. I agree that there are elements of faith surrounding science but, IMNSHO, that faith is held by non-scientists. Exaggerate? Moi? ; )

(PS: Sssup with the "Claire Swazey" - was there some sort of epiphany? Just being nosey but genuinely interested.)

 

[Gadfly]

Eeeehhhh....wellll...

It is true that religion relies on faith. I don't have a quibble with that.

But science, at times, is rife with theories that constantly get revised. Sometimes an element of faith creeps in. Not, I hasten to add, to the degree that you'd see with religions, but, well, I still think you're exaggerating.

Just an "element"?

Cripes, ever talk to a died-in-the-wool Darwinian Evolutionist? They are as nutty and crazed as any of the Creationists they attack and vilify.

There is absolutely NO "proof" that Darwin's theory of evolution is valid and actually describes the way "the species gradually turned one into the other". It is a big fairy tale, that is NOT supported by facts.

The species seem to appear, full blown, in their completed form, at EVERY point in history. The "evidence" does not at all lead to ANY sort of a view of a gradual evolutionary progression of life forms. If there was some long gradual change as described by Darwin, with MANY MANY randon genetic mutations resulting in MANY MANY new variations, where only a FEW remained as the "survival of the fittest", then where are all the MANY MANY necessary "missing links". I'm waiting . . . . I'm still waiting . . . . . .

Of course the true-believing Darwinists boldly assert, "oh we WILL find them missing links sooner or later because they MUST exist"! (reverse dub-in)

Actually, the notion that some alien civilization genetically engineered various lifeforms, and then placed them here at certain points in history is at least more in alignment with the FACTS.

There is often MUCH FAITH and "unsupported belief" amongst those claiming to be "scientific".

While scientists should welcome constant questioning of their theories, in the spirit of true objective concern, too often many of them clutch onto yesterday's theories, resist change, and in that regard aren't too dissimilar to the nutty true-believing religious nutbags who they imagine themselves to be so far superior to.

Of course, Scientology involves the anti-thesis of the spirit of "science". It has institutionalized the "clutching onto yesterday's theories" by the acceptance and demand of Hubbard as "source" (for all time), and has turned "resisting change" into the basic pattern of the Scientology organization (never alter Scientology). That Hubbard could have the audacity to call his subject "scientific" is so amazingly absurd, only being overshadowed by the absurdity of the people who continue to accept such nonsense.

 

[Claire Swazey]

The fact that science is rife with theories that constantly get revised is another delimiter between it and religion. I agree that there are elements of faith surrounding science but, IMNSHO, that faith is held by non-scientists. Exaggerate? Moi? ; )

(PS: Sssup with the "Claire Swazey" - was there some sort of epiphany? Just being nosey but genuinely interested.)

Religion revises theories again and again. In fact, it has quite a track record for so doing.

I've seen some scientists (well, heard of) get really into some theories to the point of anger and IRL flame wars. Some of the theories ended up being incorrect or partially correct.

Did you know that in archaeology and anthropology there's been a school of thought that led to suppressing indication of cannibalism amongst historical events and peoples such as the Anasazi and that people in the field have gotten censured for writing about it? Ok, that's soft science but Fluffy don't have the head for like fizzics and stuff. I think it's a pretty good example, perhaps.

Re the last- when I first was on the 'net, I posted as Claire or John Swazey as John used to also be interested in posting (before he found that he A) tends not to like talking to critics and B) tends not to write much anyway being one of those Big Strong Guys Who Are Bright But Who Stand Around And Go Uggg.) and it was kinda kewl. Later, I had various nicks though I was not anonymous.

Recent events in my life have led me to believe that it might not be a bad idea to post under my own name instead of just alluding to and disclosing it. It may be moar politic this way.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Good for you, Claire!