Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Court supports genetic determinism.

TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 1:09:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
An interesting first comment:

"Great logic! If the guy's genes predispose him to violence then let him out earlier so he can get busy killing people again."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 11:47:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Im sorta mixed about this.

Although i do agree to some degree that there is a genetic disposition to violence, its hard to tell who has this genetic abnormality. This opens the floodgates so that any criminal can simply claim that their "Genes made me do it" and get a free/shorter pass. Furthermore, as the first guys comment claims, if there is a genetic disposition to violence, clearly the person will repeat the crime.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 2:11:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is retarded. If they have a gene which gives them the predisposition to kill, then they are a danger society, and thus should be sent to prison and possibly rehabilitated.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:52:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 2:11:48 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
This is retarded. If they have a gene which gives them the predisposition to kill, then they are a danger society, and thus should be sent to prison and possibly rehabilitated.

Arguing they can be rehabilitated is against genetic determinism however. :P
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 7:56:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:52:33 PM, Puck wrote:
Arguing they can be rehabilitated is against genetic determinism however. :P

No. Genetic determinism only determines the traits and behaviors, which can in turn be changed by external forces - like environmental factors or external forces like rehabilitation.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 9:29:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/5/2009 7:56:25 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/5/2009 7:52:33 PM, Puck wrote:
Arguing they can be rehabilitated is against genetic determinism however. :P

No. Genetic determinism only determines the traits and behaviors, which can in turn be changed by external forces - like environmental factors or external forces like rehabilitation.

Your parents determine the genes you will have. Genetic determinism is the idea that genes are a close 1:1 with behaviour. Rehabilitation is the admittance that environmental factors may interplay with genetic factors to result in given behaviours, which is at odds with a court decision that accepts genetic determinism and concludes ownership of ones actions is lessened via certain genes.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:07:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is just phrenology mark 2.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 11:41:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
mmmm...

I think that genetic predisposition makes perfect sense as to observing who might be more violent. But this doesn't mean that we ought let them get off easier. At the end of the day, the best justification for putting people away isn't to punish them for doing something morally wrong, but rather to stop them and deter others from doing such things.

Though I think I might agree to allowing them out early if they agree to be castrated, such that they can no longer provide such excuses for future generations.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 11:42:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In fact on that note, I think I'll create a new post.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Conor
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 5:40:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 11:41:08 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mmmm...

I think that genetic predisposition makes perfect sense as to observing who might be more violent. But this doesn't mean that we ought let them get off easier. At the end of the day, the best justification for putting people away isn't to punish them for doing something morally wrong, but rather to stop them and deter others from doing such things.

Though I think I might agree to allowing them out early if they agree to be castrated, such that they can no longer provide such excuses for future generations.

Castrate? That's not needed; why not just sterilize them? Maybe that's what you meant, but the word "castrate" means to remove the testicles...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 7:54:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd be more predisposed to commit a crime too if I had a genetic test and it had a get out of jail free card printed on it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:34:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 5:40:55 PM, Conor wrote:
At 11/6/2009 11:41:08 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mmmm...

I think that genetic predisposition makes perfect sense as to observing who might be more violent. But this doesn't mean that we ought let them get off easier. At the end of the day, the best justification for putting people away isn't to punish them for doing something morally wrong, but rather to stop them and deter others from doing such things.

Though I think I might agree to allowing them out early if they agree to be castrated, such that they can no longer provide such excuses for future generations.

Castrate? That's not needed; why not just sterilize them? Maybe that's what you meant, but the word "castrate" means to remove the testicles...

Yes, for the reasons I stated sterilizing would do, but Castrating has the added benefit of pretty much eliminating their own ability to claim predisposition, as castration would deprive them of testosterone, and dispose them to be docile.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:35:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And I wouldn't much want to let them out early.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."