|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:10 pm
PrometheanSet CH1YO Who? Defectives- judged to be so as they are not properly ans safely able to conduct themselves in the social world. Of which notably a section of the criminal failures- those too far removed from potential safe use- should simply be terminated. Why? Simply as it prevents friction and difficulties between society and defectives, making for a more practical and streamline system- profitable to all concerned save those as are terminated for the reasons noted. Have you noticed how the margins of "healthy" and "normal" psychology have grown thinner and thinner with each passing year? Yet, drug companies are now allowed to advertise their antidepressants and anti-ADHD pills on television and in magazines. The message is clear - if you don't fit this ever increasingly rigorous standards of behavior and beliefs, you are then unfit to live in our society, and thus need to be drugged into submission until you can behave like "us", even if you're not doing anything that actually harms anyone. The mentally handicapped are in a similar situation every day, just without a "magic pill" to fix their "dysfunction". Murderers can be rehabilitated - look to the founder of the Crips for one example. The mentally handicapped may not be good surgeons or rocket scientists, but they can wash dishes and slap together hamburgers. Why are they suddenly unworthy of life, where you suddenly are? Who defined this carp "a century ago"? Why is this Darwinian nonsense still valid today when we have demonstrated that we've escaped evolution in that sense? An American psychological opinion is sadly too far gone. My definitions come from the first quarter of the last century, far before this American industrial nonsense. The normal can never change. Of course- those that may discernibly be are the sub-set of criminal that need not be terminated. Why would I argue that retards should be killed, on that grounds alone? As I have stated numerous times that is no argument of mine. A taxonomist? It's Adlerian, not Darwinian and has no eugenic bent, it is simply for the greatest functionality in the immediate future.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:47 pm
CH1YO PrometheanSet CH1YO Who? Defectives- judged to be so as they are not properly ans safely able to conduct themselves in the social world. Of which notably a section of the criminal failures- those too far removed from potential safe use- should simply be terminated. Why? Simply as it prevents friction and difficulties between society and defectives, making for a more practical and streamline system- profitable to all concerned save those as are terminated for the reasons noted. Have you noticed how the margins of "healthy" and "normal" psychology have grown thinner and thinner with each passing year? Yet, drug companies are now allowed to advertise their antidepressants and anti-ADHD pills on television and in magazines. The message is clear - if you don't fit this ever increasingly rigorous standards of behavior and beliefs, you are then unfit to live in our society, and thus need to be drugged into submission until you can behave like "us", even if you're not doing anything that actually harms anyone. The mentally handicapped are in a similar situation every day, just without a "magic pill" to fix their "dysfunction". Murderers can be rehabilitated - look to the founder of the Crips for one example. The mentally handicapped may not be good surgeons or rocket scientists, but they can wash dishes and slap together hamburgers. Why are they suddenly unworthy of life, where you suddenly are? Who defined this carp "a century ago"? Why is this Darwinian nonsense still valid today when we have demonstrated that we've escaped evolution in that sense? An American psychological opinion is sadly too far gone. My definitions come from the first quarter of the last century, far before this American industrial nonsense. The normal can never change. Of course- those that may discernibly be are the sub-set of criminal that need not be terminated. Why would I argue that retards should be killed, on that grounds alone? As I have stated numerous times that is no argument of mine. A taxonomist? It's Adlerian, not Darwinian and has no eugenic bent, it is simply for the greatest functionality in the immediate future. So, just because it's from the turn of the last century it's better? That ignores the tons of evidence that's out there! xd So, I take it that you're happy not being a part of the work force, not being able to vote, and stuck in the transition between the Victorian Era and the "industrial nonsense" you detest. CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO Raticiel CH1YO This argument is and always has been absurd. It is someone being deemed unfit to live due to their inability to safely live among society as evinced by his actions. Not some demented Karmic realignment. Defective parts of a machine must be removed. Excuse me but what kind of criteria do you have to know which parts are actually like that and what does it mean to be "defective"? One need not know any criteria, I have no idea from whence you derive such a notion. Defective would include the groups of failures and the retarded.
By someone's definition, you must be.
Is it ethical to remove you?Not at all. The failures are defined as is retardation, by any relevant definition I am nothing of the sort. This is what we perceive as your argument that the mentally handicapped should be put to death. Now, you want to take it back without having to retract it? I see no relevance to this "Alderian" thing you mention, and I doubt you understand what it means, in context of how you've strung words out before that, when put together say "execute the unfit, including the handicapped" and now you want to pretend you never implied anything of the sort, much less directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:28 pm
PrometheanSet So, just because it's from the turn of the last century it's better? That ignores the tons of evidence that's out there! xd So, I take it that you're happy not being a part of the work force, not being able to vote, and stuck in the transition between the Victorian Era and the "industrial nonsense" you detest. This is what we perceive as your argument that the mentally handicapped should be put to death. Now, you want to take it back without having to retract it? I see no relevance to this "Alderian" thing you mention, and I doubt you understand what it means, in context of how you've strung words out before that, when put together say "execute the unfit, including the handicapped" and now you want to pretend you never implied anything of the sort, much less directly. It does however make it immune to the problems that have arisen over the last sixty years or so. I'm not sure what you mean of these restrictions proposed upon myself but I am glad of my philosophical grounding. I never proposed that all defectives be killed, simply removed from the social spheres in which they are not able to correctly function. Why would I not understand the nature of Adlerianism? I adore the man and his works. Read correctly my posts paint a picture more of "the death penalty does and should exist to dissolve defective parts of the machine that cannot be put to better use in a more removed social sphere- a subset of the criminal failure".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:44 pm
CH1YO PrometheanSet So, just because it's from the turn of the last century it's better? That ignores the tons of evidence that's out there! xd So, I take it that you're happy not being a part of the work force, not being able to vote, and stuck in the transition between the Victorian Era and the "industrial nonsense" you detest. This is what we perceive as your argument that the mentally handicapped should be put to death. Now, you want to take it back without having to retract it? I see no relevance to this "Alderian" thing you mention, and I doubt you understand what it means, in context of how you've strung words out before that, when put together say "execute the unfit, including the handicapped" and now you want to pretend you never implied anything of the sort, much less directly. It does however make it immune to the problems that have arisen over the last sixty years or so. I'm not sure what you mean of these restrictions proposed upon myself but I am glad of my philosophical grounding. I never proposed that all defectives be killed, simply removed from the social spheres in which they are not able to correctly function. Why would I not understand the nature of Adlerianism? I adore the man and his works. Read correctly my posts paint a picture more of "the death penalty does and should exist to dissolve defective parts of the machine that cannot be put to better use in a more removed social sphere- a subset of the criminal failure". Yes, bypass the problems of the last sixty years for the even bigger problems from 100 years ago. Seems logical to me rolleyes These restrictions are from the culture of the turn of that same century that you seem to glorify above today. You have to understand, that unless you explicitly state from the start that "removal of defectives from the social sphere," where they don't fit or cause harm, doesn't have to mean death we will misunderstand - look at the context - this is a thread on the Death Penalty. I can understand and agree with you when you put it this way. Come at it that clearly from the start, and we might not have quite the same issues. I'm glad to finally find some common ground! I understand that it can get pedantic at times, but unless we lay out the details explicitly, we get into these sorts of issues. For instance, explain what the Alderian perspective is from the beginning. Sometimes needing to debate to refine your point is okay, but when you lay it all on the table we all get better results. The only problem remaining is defining that subset of the criminal class which may be executed. I would personally rather the distinction be classified by psychological and sociological professionals, and criminals classified accordingly by similar doctors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:00 pm
PrometheanSet CH1YO PrometheanSet So, just because it's from the turn of the last century it's better? That ignores the tons of evidence that's out there! xd So, I take it that you're happy not being a part of the work force, not being able to vote, and stuck in the transition between the Victorian Era and the "industrial nonsense" you detest. This is what we perceive as your argument that the mentally handicapped should be put to death. Now, you want to take it back without having to retract it? I see no relevance to this "Alderian" thing you mention, and I doubt you understand what it means, in context of how you've strung words out before that, when put together say "execute the unfit, including the handicapped" and now you want to pretend you never implied anything of the sort, much less directly. It does however make it immune to the problems that have arisen over the last sixty years or so. I'm not sure what you mean of these restrictions proposed upon myself but I am glad of my philosophical grounding. I never proposed that all defectives be killed, simply removed from the social spheres in which they are not able to correctly function. Why would I not understand the nature of Adlerianism? I adore the man and his works. Read correctly my posts paint a picture more of "the death penalty does and should exist to dissolve defective parts of the machine that cannot be put to better use in a more removed social sphere- a subset of the criminal failure". Yes, bypass the problems of the last sixty years for the even bigger problems from 100 years ago. Seems logical to me rolleyes These restrictions are from the culture of the turn of that same century that you seem to glorify above today. You have to understand, that unless you explicitly state from the start that "removal of defectives from the social sphere," where they don't fit or cause harm, doesn't have to mean death we will misunderstand - look at the context - this is a thread on the Death Penalty. I can understand and agree with you when you put it this way. Come at it that clearly from the start, and we might not have quite the same issues. I'm glad to finally find some common ground! I understand that it can get pedantic at times, but unless we lay out the details explicitly, we get into these sorts of issues. For instance, explain what the Alderian perspective is from the beginning. Sometimes needing to debate to refine your point is okay, but when you lay it all on the table we all get better results. The only problem remaining is defining that subset of the criminal class which may be executed. I would personally rather the distinction be classified by psychological and sociological professionals, and criminals classified accordingly by similar doctors. The problems of a century ago are still prevalent, why heap more upon those? I do not presume the past to have been made of gold but as it is tempting to undervalue the produce of the past it is rather easier to see where it's flaws lie. Social reform is all fine and dandy, it does not equate better academic practice however. I had hoped that I had made that very distinction from the very start- termination is the most extreme form of removal, only for the most extreme instances. I typically presume people to be properly equipped to interpret my posts, that confusion from misinterpretation occurs is inevitable but I do take efforts to clarify where requested. The criminal class of failures was defined some years ago by the goodly doctor Adler, it is only appropriate that descendent Individual Psychologists make such diagnoses of character hereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:35 pm
CH1YO PrometheanSet CH1YO PrometheanSet So, just because it's from the turn of the last century it's better? That ignores the tons of evidence that's out there! xd So, I take it that you're happy not being a part of the work force, not being able to vote, and stuck in the transition between the Victorian Era and the "industrial nonsense" you detest. This is what we perceive as your argument that the mentally handicapped should be put to death. Now, you want to take it back without having to retract it? I see no relevance to this "Alderian" thing you mention, and I doubt you understand what it means, in context of how you've strung words out before that, when put together say "execute the unfit, including the handicapped" and now you want to pretend you never implied anything of the sort, much less directly. It does however make it immune to the problems that have arisen over the last sixty years or so. I'm not sure what you mean of these restrictions proposed upon myself but I am glad of my philosophical grounding. I never proposed that all defectives be killed, simply removed from the social spheres in which they are not able to correctly function. Why would I not understand the nature of Adlerianism? I adore the man and his works. Read correctly my posts paint a picture more of "the death penalty does and should exist to dissolve defective parts of the machine that cannot be put to better use in a more removed social sphere- a subset of the criminal failure". Yes, bypass the problems of the last sixty years for the even bigger problems from 100 years ago. Seems logical to me rolleyes These restrictions are from the culture of the turn of that same century that you seem to glorify above today. You have to understand, that unless you explicitly state from the start that "removal of defectives from the social sphere," where they don't fit or cause harm, doesn't have to mean death we will misunderstand - look at the context - this is a thread on the Death Penalty. I can understand and agree with you when you put it this way. Come at it that clearly from the start, and we might not have quite the same issues. I'm glad to finally find some common ground! I understand that it can get pedantic at times, but unless we lay out the details explicitly, we get into these sorts of issues. For instance, explain what the Alderian perspective is from the beginning. Sometimes needing to debate to refine your point is okay, but when you lay it all on the table we all get better results. The only problem remaining is defining that subset of the criminal class which may be executed. I would personally rather the distinction be classified by psychological and sociological professionals, and criminals classified accordingly by similar doctors. The problems of a century ago are still prevalent, why heap more upon those? I do not presume the past to have been made of gold but as it is tempting to undervalue the produce of the past it is rather easier to see where it's flaws lie. Social reform is all fine and dandy, it does not equate better academic practice however. I had hoped that I had made that very distinction from the very start- termination is the most extreme form of removal, only for the most extreme instances. I typically presume people to be properly equipped to interpret my posts, that confusion from misinterpretation occurs is inevitable but I do take efforts to clarify where requested. The criminal class of failures was defined some years ago by the goodly doctor Adler, it is only appropriate that descendent Individual Psychologists make such diagnoses of character hereof. Yes, those problems of a century ago are just horrendous these days - Polio, smallpox, and the like. Geez, even that swine flu is just killing every one it touches! Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Now, notice that bit I quoted - your two posts there, when taken in context of one another lead to some awkward confusion. "Removal" initially sounded much like a... "sterile" and sociopathic way to describe execution, and I'm not the only one who pounced on you for that. Since we're all from different backgrounds even when describing similar fields, it is pertinent to assume that others may not understand as well without enumerating the finer details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:18 am
PrometheanSet Yes, those problems of a century ago are just horrendous these days - Polio, smallpox, and the like. Geez, even that swine flu is just killing every one it touches! Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Now, notice that bit I quoted - your two posts there, when taken in context of one another lead to some awkward confusion. "Removal" initially sounded much like a... "sterile" and sociopathic way to describe execution, and I'm not the only one who pounced on you for that. Since we're all from different backgrounds even when describing similar fields, it is pertinent to assume that others may not understand as well without enumerating the finer details. Indeed, it would take true reform of academic practice but we are so close to wiping out disease as we know it. Again this is hardly relevant but, yes, you proles have it far too good. I dare say I made the distinction between removal [in general] and execution from the onset, it may not have been the most apparent part of my statement but surely it was there. So too was I forced to make the distinction numerous times afterwards, surely I should not be expected to any more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:13 pm
CH1YO Raticiel Is it sanctioned to be a soldier and kill people during war? (or maybe: "war") What's the difference between a murderer and a soldier? And I am such a damn failure you know... I feel overjoyed with that... xd I have another question: if you don't say what's good/bad then who/what told you and why do you find it a "necessity"? (I hope I understand what you say, as english is not my first language) Absolutely- the first few books of the Republic define the same. The distinction is one of motive- murder is far more personal than soldiery. I apologise but in my inebriated state I do not fully understand but you appear to be in no means a failure to myself. I forgot to mention what kind of "soldiery" I meant... I mean a completely free person that chooses to become a soldier in order to be a hero/earn money/kill people freely/destroy damn terrorists. (there are various reasons) I don't mean someone who only wants to protect and kills in self-defense. (that's natural I think... I guess XD )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:21 pm
PrometheanSet Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Social equality, haha, now that's something. I'm afraid such equality is impossible. And academic standards are getting worse and worse every year. It's so dirty in this time of the year, you don't have a place to sit... And students are looking better. Just a little bit of paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:43 pm
Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel Is it sanctioned to be a soldier and kill people during war? (or maybe: "war") What's the difference between a murderer and a soldier? And I am such a damn failure you know... I feel overjoyed with that... xd I have another question: if you don't say what's good/bad then who/what told you and why do you find it a "necessity"? (I hope I understand what you say, as english is not my first language) Absolutely- the first few books of the Republic define the same. The distinction is one of motive- murder is far more personal than soldiery. I apologise but in my inebriated state I do not fully understand but you appear to be in no means a failure to myself. I forgot to mention what kind of "soldiery" I meant... I mean a completely free person that chooses to become a soldier in order to be a hero/earn money/kill people freely/destroy damn terrorists. (there are various reasons) I don't mean someone who only wants to protect and kills in self-defense. (that's natural I think... I guess XD ) So long as you're in the service of the state and acting as is your duty then it is still very much impersonal- who they are isn't terribly important at all, rather it is both necessary and sanctioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:01 am
Raticiel PrometheanSet Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Social equality, haha, now that's something. I'm afraid such equality is impossible. And academic standards are getting worse and worse every year. It's so dirty in this time of the year, you don't have a place to sit... And students are looking better. Just a little bit of paradox. In an absolute sense, it is completely impossible. However, when we want to talk it relative to another instance of social hierarchy, one is usually distinguishable more socially equal than another. There are exceptions where you could argue either way, but the point still stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
PrometheanSet Raticiel PrometheanSet Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Social equality, haha, now that's something. I'm afraid such equality is impossible. And academic standards are getting worse and worse every year. It's so dirty in this time of the year, you don't have a place to sit... And students are looking better. Just a little bit of paradox. In an absolute sense, it is completely impossible. However, when we want to talk it relative to another instance of social hierarchy, one is usually distinguishable more socially equal than another. There are exceptions where you could argue either way, but the point still stands. Hmm... I'd rather reverse it: in an absolute way, social equality is possible, as it does not contain any contradiction to me (as people are born as equal, you know what I mean, we all have to eat, sleep, pee etc.), but once we see how it works in reality - we see this can't stand. Perhaps humans are like that, and they simply can't make a world with perfect equality, then that means it's even more impossible xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:05 pm
Raticiel PrometheanSet Raticiel PrometheanSet Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Social equality, haha, now that's something. I'm afraid such equality is impossible. And academic standards are getting worse and worse every year. It's so dirty in this time of the year, you don't have a place to sit... And students are looking better. Just a little bit of paradox. In an absolute sense, it is completely impossible. However, when we want to talk it relative to another instance of social hierarchy, one is usually distinguishable more socially equal than another. There are exceptions where you could argue either way, but the point still stands. Hmm... I'd rather reverse it: in an absolute way, social equality is possible, as it does not contain any contradiction to me (as people are born as equal, you know what I mean, we all have to eat, sleep, pee etc.), but once we see how it works in reality - we see this can't stand. Perhaps humans are like that, and they simply can't make a world with perfect equality, then that means it's even more impossible xd Personally I would find perfect equality abhorrent, people are not all the same- we are things of individual beauty, not to appreciate that we are fundamentally each and everyone different is to deny us so much of what we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:39 pm
CH1YO Raticiel PrometheanSet Raticiel PrometheanSet Social reform may not lead to better academic standards, but when done right it leads to more social equality. You know, give us Proletariat less of a reason to rise up against the Bourgeoisie, no? Social equality, haha, now that's something. I'm afraid such equality is impossible. And academic standards are getting worse and worse every year. It's so dirty in this time of the year, you don't have a place to sit... And students are looking better. Just a little bit of paradox. In an absolute sense, it is completely impossible. However, when we want to talk it relative to another instance of social hierarchy, one is usually distinguishable more socially equal than another. There are exceptions where you could argue either way, but the point still stands. Hmm... I'd rather reverse it: in an absolute way, social equality is possible, as it does not contain any contradiction to me (as people are born as equal, you know what I mean, we all have to eat, sleep, pee etc.), but once we see how it works in reality - we see this can't stand. Perhaps humans are like that, and they simply can't make a world with perfect equality, then that means it's even more impossible xd Personally I would find perfect equality abhorrent, people are not all the same- we are things of individual beauty, not to appreciate that we are fundamentally each and everyone different is to deny us so much of what we are. What you pointed out I assume is what I find "in reality". But fundamentally there's no difference, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
