Oh This Does Us A Lot Of Good Options

[depressed lonely...]

Today on the news i've heard that a 15 year old Sydney boy got away with stabbing another boy 7 times in the back with a kitchen knife while at school.
And can anyone guess why he got away with it......silence because he has aspurgers which apparently a diesese (rather than a syndrome) whicj is similar to a combination of Downs syndrome and Autism(got to give them Autism although it is clissified as a totally different specktrum) and as a result of this he can't help stabbing people and should get off.

What bull asif people with aspurgers down't get enough bullcrap misinformation thrown around allready they think they have right to do this.

And yet another thing the Canberra fires which caused masive damage to homes,property and wildlife were lit. Any normal person would get mass amounts of jail time.....this guy who is in his 20's got off because he has.....wait for it....Atention Defficit Dissorder well then never mind that he joined the force to put fires out or that he stole the accelerants he can't contol himself so how will we punish him? we'll give him18 months of weekend gaol.


This kind of thing is bull total crap it builds a rep for anyone concerned from this time on how many people with A.D.D will be allowed in the fire brigades I'm betting a stack less cos they obviously can't help themselves.

[Polocrunch]

Well, that raises the question of the extent to which any of us really have free will, or whether all of our actions are determined by society and our genes. It would kind of invalidate the justice system if the latter were true.

[CommieBastard]

Well, that raises the question of the extent to which any of us really have free will, or whether all of our actions are determined by society and our genes. It would kind of invalidate the justice system if the latter were true.

It would also invalidate any justification for praising people. I mean, sure, Florence Nightingale saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, but that was all her genes, right?

I don't personally believe ADD and Asperger's Syndrome to be sufficient to excuse immoral behaviour; and "excusing" people because of it is harmful to ADDers, Aspergians and society as a whole.

[pgrmdave]

Well, that raises the question of the extent to which any of us really have free will, or whether all of our actions are determined by society and our genes. It would kind of invalidate the justice system if the latter were true

This is similar to the argument that determinism, the idea that cause and effect are the reason for all events, destroys personal responsibility. I like this story, it shows some fallacies in that idea.

Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher emperor, had a slave, Epictetus, (later freed) who was also a philosopher. As the story goes, Epictetus knocked an expensive vase off a table and it shattered on the floor. Marcus Aurelius starting beating him for it. Epictetus cried out ,"Master, as a believer in determinism, you know that I had no choice in this matter, but was predestined from the beginning of time to break that vase!" Marcus Aurelius replied, still swinging, "And you, as a believer in determinism, know then that I have no choice but to beat you!"

[Mata]

I know it's the case with ADD, but it is also true that there are varying levels of severity of Asperger's Syndrome? I can't say I really know much about the condition.

Considering that it often seems like most of the western world suffers a degree of ADD there does have to be some evaluation of its severity of personality distortion before lack of culpability can be established.

[CommieBastard]

I know it's the case with ADD, but it is also true that there are varying levels of severity of Asperger's Syndrome? I can't say I really know much about the condition.

Yes, that's true; however - and while my knowledge of Asperger's is quite limited - as far as I'm aware its principal impact is on interpersonal social interaction. An Aspergian has difficulty understanding and being understood in many cases, particularly when emotions are being discussed or when talking with somebody who is not being literal (jokes, sarcasm, metaphors, hinting etc). I don't know of anything about the syndrome that could possibly excuse violence.

[TehRoxxorCOD]

Not at all true, and I speak from experience, being one with Asperger's myself. It's very easy to mistake someone else's comments or actions as being threatening or very insulting.

While Asperger's syndrome, ADD, ADHD, etc., should not alone be an excuse for violence, it certainly does help to explain it.

Of course, being that we with Asperger's are NOT insane, the boy should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. True, he may have some trouble recognizing that his action was completely unacceptable, but at the very least he would know that stabbing a person is both immoral by any standards, and also illegal.

I have spoken. Woo ha ha.

[pgrmdave]

Seeing as you deal with the syndrome yourself, I am inclined to give your ideas more weight than others, thank you for posting.

[CommieBastard]

TehRoxxor: thanks for the clarification. I've never really know anybody with Asperger's; I was speaking from what I've read in places.

[believe]

My step-brother has it. The really sad thing was his family was too ashamed/in denial to seek real help for him til he was an older teenager and problems started. 'John' as we shall call him, definitely has trouble seeing things from an adult perspective. His social functioning is behind, always has been. He related better to my younger cousin than kids his own age, which hasn't changed. He's now a registered sex offender from playing doctor with a younger cousin, doubly sad because I don't think he realized what he -did-. That it wasn't curiousity, but sexual molestation. From an adult perspective, at least. He doesn't seem capable of physical violence, but I would definitely believe he couldn't fully grasp/process the ramifications of violence to an adult level.

While John is not retarded, he doesn't understand protecting himself or inevitable consquences of his actions. At least, judging by his behavior. >_o He doesn't seem to understand that he needs to stay away from any younger girls (not children, teenagers near his age) and how much trouble he will get into, regardless if they're the same mental age. Going off my experiences with John, I could definitely see some cases of Asperger's needing that to kept in mind. I do agree though, that the kid in the stabbing case had to know it was wrong. Even children know that. And whether or not its more understandable, he shouldn't be put back where more people are in danger.

[Mata]

Which leads us quite nicely onto Commie's avatar. Sean, fancy gracing us with a few of the lnks? I found the whole thing hideously hypnotic, and clearly lots of other people on the internet felt the same, albeit in a far more fascinated way than I did...

The basic story is that a 12 year old girl knifed another girl at school. The really strange thing is the celebrity cult that grew around her online. I thought the act was odd and very tragic, but the cult around her was car-crash interesting. Very strange stuff indeed.

[PsychWardMike]

So that's who that is eh? I figured it was a random little Asian girl... apparently not. I read the article about her, though. Why was it that she did it?

Ah well, I suppose that doesn't really matter. It's just another reason for me to abandon my humanistic tendencies. Or at least it makes me harder to be an optimist.

[PsychWardMike]

I don't have A.D. myself, but artistUnknown's sister does, and I couldn't really see it leading to violence. Of course everyone is different. However, from my (admittedly very limited) time with her, it simply means that she can't read people well. I would make sarcastic jokes and she would take them personally, yeah, but it doesn't seem to effect her personality (she's ditzy, but nice) nor her intellect (she's bright, despite what AU might say.) Anyway, there you go. My limited knowledge.

[Quoth(The Raven)]

I've wondered for a bit, now, if I might have Aspergers, or a related syndrome... I have had a bit of trouble reading other people... (Whether or not the debacle with CheeseMoose had anything to do with that, I don't know...). I know that, offline, where I have to deal with people face to face, I'm almost literally terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing. I find people to be unpredictable, and more than a little scary... I can leave the house, if there is an overwhelming need to do so... But I make excuses to avoid making contact with people, especially strangers... I get frustrated easily, and wear my temper close to the skin, these days... My mind is always wandering from the task at hand (Which, admittedly, is part of why I get so frustrated...).

The only thing the local Mental health center seems to agree on is that I have a problem... It's just murder trying to get anyone to commit to a diagnosis...

[depressed lonely...]

I have aspurgers but in a mild form.
I believe/know that every one has some Autistic tendancys it's just not diagnosed unless it's severe.
That said there are very different degrees of aspyness I for instance have it in a mild form and through awareness of it am apparently less aspy than i was say 4 years ago but I'm obviously still odd cos behavior i see as ordinary or fun other people see as strange, childish or potentialy dangerous.
I had a friend who was severely aspy eg she'd say very hurtful thing and not realise it like.
*runing up to me in woolies* HEY ARE YOU GOING BALD
*stanging a checkout line* WHAT BRA SIZE DO YOU WEAR
come on sit next to me *about 5 minutes later* DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE BLACKHEADS ON YOUR BACK.
Those sorts of things and not get that it was not entirely tacktfull
Another time her sister had come to show off her contact lenses
Friends sister * hey do you see anything different about me?
Friend ............no
F.S anything at all my face perhaps????
F ..............no still nothing
F.S something different about my eyes *while pointing at them*
F *leans in* your eyes are really veiny
F.S *huffs off*


and she leaves a bunch of frustrated people in her wake a thousand times a day.
She obceses about things and people worse than me.
SHe just generally is oblivious to anyone else and when i sugeted that she read a few books explianing howshe mnight be alienateing people she said " if i was bothering people they'd tell me" never mind that i was esentially saying that i thought she was having problems.


But then I've been told that I have a very Autistic way of typeing and comunicating online....I thought I typed the same as everyone else.


You could very well have aspurgers i think it's a more valid diagnoses than A.D.D
as i said it isn't usually diagnosed untill it's seriously obvious that it causes problems.
My advice would to read up about how you could be bothering people. Though that won't make emotions easier to understand.

[Daedalus]

Well, that raises the question of the extent to which any of us really have free will, or whether all of our actions are determined by society and our genes. It would kind of invalidate the justice system if the latter were true.

Not really. Punishing someone for a crime basically is simply giving the offender a reason, a cause for behaving within the law. Society may have made them what they are, but in the same way, the justice system can be used as a rehabilitory tool to make them into a law abiding person - In theory anyway. Even if something is caused by a genetic disposition, punishment or treatment is simply applying a more dominant disposition which will override the genetics.

Just thought I'd throw that in, since I was studying free will and determinism last term. I don't know that much about the actual topic itself, so I'll leave that to those who know what they're talking about.

[believe]

Nicely put, Daedalus. With all respect to any here who might believe in it, I've always found determinism to be dangerously close to excuses. Something reminscient of being a kid and saying that well, your brother -made- you do it. Its a bit convienent.

Besides which, I don't think the evidence supports that. Different backgrounds that should produce a or b, don't do it reliably. People are given the same choice, only to lead very different lives all the time. And so on. >.> *Steps quickly off the soapbox*

[Polocrunch]

Punishing someone for a crime basically is simply giving the offender a reason, a cause for behaving within the law. Society may have made them what they are, but in the same way, the justice system can be used as a rehabilitory tool to make them into a law abiding person - In theory anyway. Even if something is caused by a genetic disposition, punishment or treatment is simply applying a more dominant disposition which will override the genetics.

Well, would you agree then that the penitentiary side of the justice system can be safely abolished? If we are acting only because we have been led to by some non-rational force, then we should not be encouraged to repent our action. We can still be punished in order to provide an 'over-riding disposition', but it would not be fair to try to make us sorry if the crime was not our fault.

With all respect to any here who might believe in it, I've always found determinism to be dangerously close to excuses. Something reminscient of being a kid and saying that well, your brother -made- you do it. Its a bit convienent

I don't think we can dismiss an argument simply on the grounds that it is convenient for the person putting it forward to be correct. It was convenient for you that you had a strong alibi in that recent murder case, but that doesn't make your alibi false.

Besides which, I don't think the evidence supports that. Different backgrounds that should produce a or b don't do it reliably.

Perhaps that is because we don't understand the human mind properly. It is a hugely complex organ, and there are many tiny discrepancies between the minds of even the most similar people that might cause them to act in very different ways in certain circumstances. Our understanding of the human mind and of the role our genes play in our behaviour is currently pretty primitive, so to rule out absolute determinism on the basis of current evidence is probably not very reliable.

[believe]

I don't think we can dismiss an argument simply on the grounds that it is convenient for the person putting it forward to be correct. It was convenient for you that you had a strong alibi in that recent murder case, but that doesn't make your alibi false.

An argument should only be dismissed based on evidence or the lack of. However, people love to use excuses and thats what I was protesting. I should have clarified. 'I wouldn't have hit her if she'd shut up. She was asking for it.' I've had too many friends with abusive parents and I'm afraid I'm entirely out of patience with that crap. If we believe in determinism to its more literal sense, than they were all 'helpless' to protect their children. And others would be helpless to not abuse them. Which would seem to be a pretty horrific world. I'm sure there's different variants of determinism, thats just the one we discussed in Psychology.

Feeling pissed is not an excuse for murder. Ect. If you can prove a genetic disorder like schizophrenia, of course I'd take that into account. I'm just tired of some select people trying to place everything else into the same category as serious illnesses.

Perhaps that is because we don't understand the human mind properly. It is a hugely complex organ, and there are many tiny discrepancies between the minds of even the most similar people that might cause them to act in very different ways in certain circumstances. Our understanding of the human mind and of the role our genes play in our behaviour is currently pretty primitive, so to rule out absolute determinism on the basis of current evidence is probably not very reliable.

There is a lot we don't know. We also don't know -near- enough to prove determinism. What we can go on know, is what we know. That people from similiar backgrounds and enviroments make different choices. Some choose violence and others rise about it. Enviroment isn't a guarantee, nor is having the same parents and similiar genetic material. Again, its not proof and certainly, genetics affect predispositions. We just have enough variation to prove some choice, unless science reveals something stronger.

[Daedalus]

Punishing someone for a crime basically is simply giving the offender a reason, a cause for behaving within the law. Society may have made them what they are, but in the same way, the justice system can be used as a rehabilitory tool to make them into a law abiding person - In theory anyway. Even if something is caused by a genetic disposition, punishment or treatment is simply applying a more dominant disposition which will override the genetics.

Well, would you agree then that the penitentiary side of the justice system can be safely abolished? If we are acting only because we have been led to by some non-rational force, then we should not be encouraged to repent our action. We can still be punished in order to provide an 'over-riding disposition', but it would not be fair to try to make us sorry if the crime was not our fault.

It's arguable that the fear of further punishment is the cause for adherance to the law. Pure rehabilitation isn't sufficient to reform someone that doesn't want to change in the first place, so less friendly measures become appropriate.

And just because someone is more inclined (due to upbringing or genetics) towards illegal behaviour doesn't mean that they are completely without choice. Choices are made in the context of the causes that lead up to them. While a decision or an impulse to do something is a cause for that action in itself (which has it's own set of causes), it is an internal one. External causes which might influence a decision can't be punished for, but the final cause that leads directly to an action is always something internal to the actor, and they can be held responsible for it and any forseeable effects.

[CommieBastard]

I'm sure there's different variants of determinism, thats just the one we discussed in Psychology.

The determinism I'm familiar with entirely rules out free will. It goes like this:

[1] Every event has a cause.
[2] Every cause is itself an event.

The conclusion is therefore that every single thing that happens was directly caused by something immediately preceding it, which was itself caused by something immediately preceding it, ad infinitum. Everything that happens has been pre-ordained since the beginning of time.

[Mata]

All of which is now being made a mockery of by quantum physics, unless people want to insist that the random decay of particles (for example) is happening in a pattern that was pre-ordained to be random....

[CommieBastard]

All of which is now being made a mockery of by quantum physics, unless people want to insist that the random decay of particles (for example) is happening in a pattern that was pre-ordained to be random....

But surely something (if only entropy) is causing that decay? And something is causing entropy, etc etc?

/Devil's Advocate

[Daedalus]

There are varying degrees of determinism. Hard determinists believe everything is pre-determined with no room for free will. Soft determinism is similar to what I've been saying in previous posts. I recommend you have a look at what Walter T. Stace says about it in Religion and the Modern Mind. His conclusion makes the most sense to me.

[believe]

I'll see if I can find him, next library trip. Thanks Daedalus.

Heh. And spookily enough.. extreme determism sounds a bit like the people that justify everything by saying it was clearly God's will. heh. Or the more severe applications of karma. Which is interesting now that I think about it. Versions of that philosophy visible in so many different cultures.