Violence - Case studies.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-07 11:40:52

I just attended a La Leche League conference with my wife. I attended a session about raising children. They had studied a few famous and infamous people in history. There were some notable common problems with the infamous ones. There was one overiding common influence in the famous ones.

Hitler, Ted Bundy, and Sadaam Hussein all had violent, autoritarian, abusive fathers. One thing that really struck me, though, was what they did to animals. They abused and killed animals in front of their children to intimidate them.

Gandhi, and Mother Teresa on the other hand had mothers who loved and treated their children well and with respect. They never spanked them or verbally abused them.

Oprah, and Ted Turner started out with abusive families but eventually found mentors that filled the role of the good mothers mentioned above.

Mars could benefit from some loving mothers and fathers that respect life.

clark · 2003-04-07 13:04:12

They had studied a few famous and infamous people in history. There were some notable common problems with the infamous ones. There was one overiding common influence in the famous ones.

Just a disclaimer: It is intellectually dishonest to form a scientific conclusion of fact based on three case studies. It is also dishonest not to account for other outside charatericits associated with the groups that may confound your conclusions. There can be traits associated with these leader types that have more to do with their behaviour than how their parents raised them.

This also implies that adult behavior is primarily the result of parental rearing- while this is debatable, it should be noted that there are numerous examples where the opposite findings are the result of the same parenting.

The main problem I have with this is most people will take the broad overgeneralization of parental influence upon adult behavior as some type of fact unto itself.

The reality is that the only clear statment that can be made is that on AVERAGE, adults like "this", had parents like "this".

And even that statement cannot be attributed to the lecture as they only concerned themselves with a very limited number of 'leaders'. In order for this to be accurate or meaningful, it would have to do an actual study of some several thousand leaders, and account for possible confounding variables shared among the sample population.

Thanks for sharing, not directing this at you, just pointing out that it is little more than rhetoric with an agenda.

Palomar · 2003-04-07 13:20:05

Mars could benefit from some loving mothers and fathers that respect life.

*I couldn't agree with you more. However, after reading your post a case history came to mind: A family in the Midwest, in the 1960s, parents never divorced and 5 or 6 kids (mostly boys). The parents' marriage was good, solid and healthy; all the kids were healthy, intelligent and well adjusted -- except one son who was, from early childhood, a petty thief, a habitual liar, picked fights and was always getting into trouble. He later committed murder during the course of bank robbery, was convicted of 1st-degree murder and given the death sentence. I don't know if he's still alive or not (unfortunately I can't recall the family name, or his name), but he admitted later, in prison, that he'd had a wonderful home life, terrific parents, etc., etc...and that it was something in him alone which drove him to being the way he was. Evidently, as none of his siblings ever had even a minor brush with the law and all went on to have stable families and successful careers.

I suppose this could lead into a "nature versus nuture" debate...which I'm really not interested in pursuing and it's not my intention to start one.

It just seems that there are "bad seeds" out there. ::shrugs::

But yes, loving and emotionally supportive parents (or parenting figures) are definitely desirable!

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-04-07 14:39:12

I've given this a lot of thought in the past, about why some kids "go bad" in spite of ideal parents, background, etc.....one would have to think that a lot of this has to do with faulty wiring in the brain or whatever.

As we move ahead into the future, I think it's highly likely that scientists will be able to determine the actual cause of anti-social behavior, and if they do, it wouldn't be farfetched to think that drugs and/or various "brain editing" techniques could be developed to cure people of "criminal illness." If this kind of treatment could actually be made available, would it be kosher to try and cure as many people as possible before they go out and commit these terrible crimes? Or perhaps, if a person is convicted of a violent act against another, that their sentence include this form of "brain editing?" As I've mentioned before, the idea of a race of perfect beings sounds horrible, but to me, to have to put up with murderers and rapists running around in our midst is even worse, imo, and if the means are developed to prevent this, shouldn't we do everything in our power to do so?

If I had a kid that was turning out to be a habitual thief, got off on killing helpless animals, or being a cruel bully to others, and a doctor told me that his or her brain could be "reformed" through the use of this sort of treatment, I'd be saying, "heck yes!" To me, it's no different than curing a terminal disease or finding a way to reverse a drug addiction or whatever. What you all think of this?

B

Palomar · 2003-04-07 19:52:42

If I had a kid that was turning out to be a habitual thief, got off on killing helpless animals, or being a cruel bully to others, and a doctor told me that his or her brain could be "reformed" through the use of this sort of treatment, I'd be saying, "heck yes!" To me, it's no different than curing a terminal disease or finding a way to reverse a drug addiction or whatever. What you all think of this?
B

*Well, here's my best answer: Back home, a guy named Aaron and his family attended my parents' church; Aaron is a year older than me. He was always in trouble, but then his home life was a bit odd (mother had mental and emotional problems, older sister was diagnosed with schizophrenia in her early 20s). Aaron was habitually into trouble in his preteen and teenage years. Unlike his 3 siblings, he was in and out of trouble, shuttled through foster homes, went to a detention school at least once, and continued to hang around with other troubled boys. The last crime I knew of he and his friends committing was breaking and entering an art studio and supply shop in my hometown. Aaron and his friends were given one last warning: Next time, it's prison. They were taken on a "tour" of a prison there in Iowa, inmates spoke to them to try and wise them up. Aaron said what had scared him was the straightforward sexual "come-ons" of some of the inmates. Regardless, Aaron did change his ways -- abruptly and, nearing 39 years old, apparently permanently. He's been married for over a decade, has a daughter, and works (ironically?) as a prison guard. I last saw him roughly 13 years ago; he was a totally different person. He's got his act together, is responsible, etc. This is the guy who everyone was certain (including yours truly) would likely spend time in prison -- and probably a lot of it. But nope...he turned over a new leaf, has been "on the straight and narrow" for years and years now.

I'm not overly fond of the notion of messing around in peoples' brains -- literally. It's an ethical morass, a huge can of worms...with much potential for abuse.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-08 01:17:22

Why the sad face Cindy? That sounds like a good story.

Personally, I don't like the idea of fiddling with peoples brains, either. I could see fixing people with damaged tissue, but what happens when our definitions of damaged tissue change? It's a wacky subject, only meant for computer nerds like myself in the late hours of the night.

clark · 2003-04-08 06:24:29

To me, it's no different than curing a terminal disease or finding a way to reverse a drug addiction or whatever. What you all think of this?

You go the doctors office, he tells you that your lab results indicate that you have a predisposition for deviant and maladjusted behavior. He tells you that he has some medicine, if taken, will adjust the neurotramsimitters in your brain, thereby reducing the chances of you acting out in a 'maladjusted' way.

You talk to him, and he tells you that the medicine has side effects. He also tells you that there are other means to treat this possible problem, however, they take time and commitment. The medicine though is nothing more than a little pill you take twice a day.

What would you do?

The problem with medicating segments of society is that it eventually will lead to doping of the entire society.

Byron · 2003-04-08 07:20:49

Yeah, I hate the thought of a whole society being doped with drugs, but unfortunately, that's already starting to happen - just look at the huge increase in prescription drugs for depression and the like. Just take a look at the success of Viagra..lol Imagine what it will be like when they finally invent the magic "fat burning" pill...Eat All You Want - Never Gain Weight - No Exercise Needed! Or when they invent a pill that improves memory or congnitive function...the 50% of the population whose brains fall on the "wrong side" of the bell curve will be bursting into doctor's offices around the world, desperate to become "smart" like the other half of the population. Like it or not, that day is coming, and probably will come a lot sooner than we realize. We can't live without electricity, we can't live without motorized transportation, and we can't live without our drugs and medicines...it's a part of who we are, as humans, in this modern age...

Like all technological advances, drugs do have the potential for abuse, but if something that is broken, and can be fixed the "easy way", it's only natural that people will choose that method of curing what ails them. If a drug addict had a choice of enduring a painful period of withdrawal, along with endless series of 12-point meetings and the like, vs. taking 2 pills a day for a month...what do you think he's going to do? Same thing with the parents who have reached their wit's end with their criminally-inclined children....2 pills a day, or years of costly therapy that may or may not work...what would they choose? What would YOU choose? What do you think is the moral thing to do - keep a rapist behind bars for 20 years, ruining his chances of living a productive life, or giving him a treatment that would ensure he would never commit such an act again, and therefore allowing him to live a normal, meaningful life?

To me, it's all about balancing the negs and pos, the pros and cons...and if I, along with others, see more pros in something, it doesn't make sense to deny that. To me, drugs have more potential to do more good than harm...as they do now, in this current day and age...

B

clark · 2003-04-08 07:42:15

To me, it's all about balancing the negs and pos, the pros and cons...and if I, along with others, see more pros in something, it doesn't make sense to deny that.

I agree with you. However, are you sure you are considering all of the negatives?

Yeah, I hate the thought of a whole society being doped with drugs, but unfortunately, that's already starting to happen - just look at the huge increase in prescription drugs for depression and the like.

Here is a warning sign. Life is horrible, I am so depressed with everything I have to do. Segue to anti-depressants.

Now I have a pill that makes me happy, life is tolerable.

What has changed?

A persons persepctive. Their reality- the environment that contributes towards their depression, all of that is ignored. A little pill suddenly makes your lot in life much easier to bare. Is the person helped in this situation? If they have little options to improve their life, if it is difficult to improve their environment, then the pill is a perfect solution. It makes what you are stuck with tolerable. However, what if it were within this persons power to improve their environment? Say change a job, or move to some place sunny? This option might be overlooked becuase the 'simple" fix precludes it.

Imagine what it will be like when they finally invent the magic "fat burning" pill...Eat All You Want - Never Gain Weight - No Exercise Needed!

The Romans had their vomatorium's, why shouldn't we have an updated equivilant?

. We can't live without electricity, we can't live without motorized transportation, and we can't live without our drugs and medicines...it's a part of who we are, as humans, in this modern age...

You name dependancies. Why accept another one? Why take the gift of salt?

Like all technological advances, drugs do have the potential for abuse, but if something that is broken, and can be fixed the "easy way", it's only natural that people will choose that method of curing what ails them.

It's easier to kill those who disagree with me than convince them to see my point of view. The easy way is not always, or even usually, the best way to go about things. It's also a matter of identifying what is 'broken'. When it comes to the human mind, you just simply cannot ignore the environment.

If a drug addict had a choice of enduring a painful period of withdrawal, along with endless series of 12-point meetings and the like, vs. taking 2 pills a day for a month...what do you think he's going to do?

The drug addict will take drugs. That's the M.O. Drug addiction is about escape from the environment because of an inability to cope succesfully with the stressors. A drug would have to speak to these issues to be effective for treatment. By and large, medication for addicts is only used to 'quiet' the brain so the addict can learn positive coping techniques to deal with the stressors. In other words, they need to learn how to deal, and driugs simply will not teach you this.

What do you think is the moral thing to do - keep a rapist behind bars for 20 years, ruining his chances of living a productive life, or giving him a treatment that would ensure he would never commit such an act again?

Jail em. We put down animals that attack others. Why? Becuase an animal IS- it is what it is, and it has no choice in the matter. A person though has a choice to act on their impulse, or not. For some, it is harder to NOT act, in which case, they are a threat to those with more self control.

Furthermore, chemical castration is just a 'jail' by another name- updated with today's technology. It's nothing more than a lobotomy.

Byron · 2003-04-08 07:57:45

B
*Well, here's my best answer: Back home, a guy named Aaron and his family attended my parents' church; Aaron is a year older than me. He was always in trouble, but then his home life was a bit odd (mother had mental and emotional problems, older sister was diagnosed with schizophrenia in her early 20s). Aaron was habitually into trouble in his preteen and teenage years. Unlike his 3 siblings, he was in and out of trouble, shuttled through foster homes, went to a detention school at least once, and continued to hang around with other troubled boys. The last crime I knew of he and his friends committing was breaking and entering an art studio and supply shop in my hometown. Aaron and his friends were given one last warning: Next time, it's prison. They were taken on a "tour" of a prison there in Iowa, inmates spoke to them to try and wise them up. Aaron said what had scared him was the straightforward sexual "come-ons" of some of the inmates. Regardless, Aaron did change his ways -- abruptly and, nearing 39 years old, apparently permanently. He's been married for over a decade, has a daughter, and works (ironically?) as a prison guard. I last saw him roughly 13 years ago; he was a totally different person. He's got his act together, is responsible, etc. This is the guy who everyone was certain (including yours truly) would likely spend time in prison -- and probably a lot of it. But nope...he turned over a new leaf, has been "on the straight and narrow" for years and years now.
I'm not overly fond of the notion of messing around in peoples' brains -- literally. It's an ethical morass, a huge can of worms...with much potential for abuse.
--Cindy

Yes, that's a good story...but I'm afraid that's the exception, rather than the rule for this kind of situation.

How about this story?: A woman had 3 children, 2 of whom turned out to be "good," while one grew up a thief and drug addict who could not control his impulses, not matter how much therapy they went through and geniune effort to impose self-control upon his own behavior. He went to jail as well, for stealing a car. He got out with a burning desire never to commit a criminal act again. Well, that was fine and dandy, but that still didn't solve his problem of doing illegal drugs and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, as well as getting into fights in bars and the like. Now he is dead because of this (driving while impaired while attemting to flee people he had been in a fight with). Get it...the guy's DEAD because of his inablity to control his own behavior; someone who was really a "good" person inside. If there had been drugs that could have controlled this sort of thing, he would most likely be alive today, married with children and enjoying life like most of us.

Like anything else, if something is broken, and a means is made available to fix it, I think it's wrong to deny that...after all, everyone deserves a chance to live a "normal" life, right?

B

Byron · 2003-04-08 08:30:38

A persons persepctive. Their reality- the environment that contributes towards their depression, all of that is ignored. A little pill suddenly makes your lot in life much easier to bare. Is the person helped in this situation? If they have little options to improve their life, if it is difficult to improve their environment, then the pill is a perfect solution. It makes what you are stuck with tolerable. However, what if it were within this persons power to improve their environment? Say change a job, or move to some place sunny? This option might be overlooked becuase the 'simple" fix precludes it.

Well, I've known people that have done everything possible to change their enviroment, such as moving to another location, getting another job, etc...and guess what...no matter where you go, there you are... What I HAVE seen, when they have undertaken treatment for their condition, their lives have improved by 100%. Now they can enjoy what they do, enjoy each day as it comes, and not have to be running here and there in a desperate attempt to flee the demons that reside inside their brain. Their lives are *better* now with their treatment...is that so wrong?

Besides, most people really don't have the option of changing their enviroment...new jobs are hard to come by, uprooting one's family to move to Florida is really not an option for the majority of folks (believe me...there are way too many people down here already!!), and one-on-one counseling is out of financial reach for many people.

The Romans had their vomatorium's, why shouldn't we have an updated equivilant?

Haven't we practically reached this point already? Ever heard of bulimia and other eating disorders? People who are overweight and have tried everything possible to lose weight clearly deserve a method to prevent them from over-eating, as well as a way to artificially increase their too-low metabolism. What's so bad about having a drug that makes one feel full after eating a lean, healthy meal? Perhaps then we wouldn't see so many people scarfing down one Big Mac after another.

You name dependancies. Why accept another one?

Face it, we humans are the most dependent animals on this planet. If it wasn't for modern technology, the vast majority of us wouldn't even be around. I, for one, would have been long dead had I been born in the 19th Century, rather than the 20th (asthma). Just look at the case of Steven Hawking...an example of man wedded to technology if there ever was one...but because he was fortunate to live in THIS age, it has been possible for him not only to live, but to become one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

Like it or not, we will *always* be dependent on our own technology...especially if we go to Mars...lol.. :;):

As for self-control...yes, that is one of the most admirable traits...and also one of the most elusive. A great number of criminal acts are committed precisely due to this lack of self-control. With drugs that would give those who lack this important social quality the self-control most of us have, I think the people that have been raped, or have lost loved ones to homicide, would give a huge "thanks" for this technology.

B

clark · 2003-04-08 09:09:57

Well, I've known people that have done everything possible to change their enviroment, such as moving to another location, getting another job, etc...and guess what...no matter where you go, there you are... What I HAVE seen, when they have undertaken treatment for their condition, their lives have improved by 100%.

However, the situation you describe is a comprehensive approach to improving the person's disposition and situation. The drug itself should not be approached as the cure-all.

Besides, most people really don't have the option of changing their enviroment...

Yet a majority of people would benefit from having more opportunity. If you have positive options from which to choose, your outlook tends to improve.

Haven't we practically reached this point already? Ever heard of bulimia and other eating disorders?

Yes. Have you looked into the causes of these disorders? Medication should not be used as a band aid for social issues.

? People who are overweight and have tried everything possible to lose weight clearly deserve a method to prevent them from over-eating, as well as a way to artificially increase their too-low metabolism.

There is a difference between a medical neccesity for treatment due to a gentic predisposition towards obesity, and giving a metab-o-lite pill for waifs who have a poor self image.

Perhaps an environment that encourages a less sedantry lifestyle and discourages fast food is a more robust and healthier solution.

What's so bad about having a drug that makes one feel full after eating a lean, healthy meal?

A pill that completely absolves one from the negative consquences of binge eating, or poor nutrional choices, will only lead to greater instances of the behaviour. people will eat more big Mac's becuase there is no penalty.

Face it, we humans are the most dependent animals on this planet.

Okay, but we can choose what we wish to be dependant upon. Greater reliance on drugs to solve our social ills leads to the dependancy- we are not there.

There are billions of us now, so the option of not being dependant upon industrial agriculture is no longer available.

With drugs that would give those who lack this important social quality the self-control most of us have, I think the people that have been raped, or have lost loved ones to homicide, would give a huge "thanks" for this technology.

Perhaps. The same results can be achieved by frontal lobotomy, why not look to that as a tool as well?

You won't though.

Pills are clean, sanitary. No muss, no fuss. After all, we all ate chewable asprin as children. This is the same thing, right?
What if we locate the portion of the brain that is responsible for all violent behjavior.

What if we could isolate that, would you support the mandatory removal of this portion of the brain for all convicted (violent) criminals?

In the mean time, i think I will go watch The Clockwork Orange another time...

Just singin' in the rain,
Just singin' in the rain,
What a glourious feeling,
I'm happy again...

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-08 09:50:47

I agree that drugs and other technological advances are a great benefit to society. But, abuses are all to common. Their short term effects seem to be positive, but what are the long term effects?

For example: The side effects of vaccines have been studdied for the short term but no long term studies have ever...EVER been done. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I know there have been no long term studies on Genetically Engineered foods.

Here's one that I do know about: Infant formula isn't supposed to kill babies, right? In a wealthy society it doesn't seem to, but in developing nations it kills them by the thousands. This technology is abused by big businesses. They aggresively market formula to people who are too poor to continue buying enough of it and whose water is likely to be unsafe to drink. All the while these babies would have been perfectly healthy had their mothers not been tricked into not breastfeeding.

Technology is wonderful, but when abused it causes much more harm than good.

Palomar · 2003-04-08 10:47:58

*Byron, I see the points you are trying to make. I'm all for progress, the betterment of mankind, etc.

However, what about those people who feel there is nothing wrong with them? People who simply want to project out onto others/society all their troubles, woes and ills?

I'm currently reading a true crime story by Ann Rule, "Bitter Harvest," about an M.D. named Debora Green, who has a genius IQ. She lived in Kansas with her husband (also an M.D.) and their 3 children. This woman was intellectually brilliant...but suffered from mental illness (and prior to the onset of active mental illness symptoms showed very little wisdom or common sense in her everday life). This woman's medical practice went down the tubes, she began drinking herself into oblivion, she prescribed narcotics for "patients" which she would pick up herself at pharmacies for her own use; she became a literal mess in her early 40s. Her husband is a cardiologist; a far cry from a psychiatrist, but being both specialities require M.D. and these folks would rub shoulders with one another on the golf course or in hospital corridors, I can't understand why her husband didn't know something was wrong upstairs with Debora. She continued to deteriorate, to the point of trying to poison him with ricin. He left her to begin an affair with another woman. A few months later, Debora burned their new 18-room mansion down -- with their 3 children inside, asleep! Two died of smoke inhalation, the other got safely out.

Debora Green is in prison today, for life. She doesn't believe she's mentally ill or needs help. She has a genius IQ, graduated top honors from med school, etc. It's all her husband's fault -- all of it. And she didn't commit the crime.

That's an extreme case, granted. But look at people like Charles Manson; he thinks we are all "pigs" who deserve to be shot and stacked up in piles of corpses because we are using up "his water" and "his air," etc. He doesn't think he needs help.

I've known a few people in my personal life who have serious emotional and psychological problems who are essentially the same way: It's all society, everybody and everything else. There's nothing wrong with them.

Do we force these sorts of people to get cured? What about relatives who excuse them for whatever reason, or turn a blind eye and resent others "interfering" with their family member?

Most people who need help don't want it, or refuse to recognize they need it. I worked from 1994 to 1998 at a psychiatric and substance abuse rehabilitation hospital (combination of services); most of the patients who need psychiatric medications (having been diagnosed by more than one doctor with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, etc.) don't -want- to take their medication: They cheek it, spit it out later, flush the pills down the toilet, refuse to get refills, you name it. Or they may take their meds for a while...then when they begin to feel better they think they're cured permanently, quit taking the medications, decompensate, and the process starts all over again. Many of them also insist there's nothing wrong with them; it's society and everyone else misunderstanding them or picking on them or trying to control them -- they will make these insistences even if and when they are seriously in danger of harming themselves (not to mention others).

What do we do with people like this? If they won't accept the best forms of treatment today, why would they accept better treatments tomorrow? And how do you get people like this to admit and accept in the first place that they need help?

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-04-08 13:06:07

However, the situation you describe is a comprehensive approach to improving the person's disposition and situation. The drug itself should not be approached as the cure-all.

O.K., I can agree with you there...I would hope that the medical community would adhere to this premise as well. As long as people are taking these type of drugs under the supervision of a physician who has a stake in the patient's well-being, this should greatly limit the potential abuse by the user...the same thing would apply to weight-control drugs...no sane doctor would prescribe a powerful metabolism booster to someone who only has 1% body fat...at least I hope not! Like everything else in life, we have to be reasonable about these things....

Yet a majority of people would benefit from having more opportunity. If you have positive options from which to choose, your outlook tends to improve.

Boy, I certainly agree with you on that one. I have some great solutions for ya too....take the 10 ten secondary schools in the country, analyse them as far as the level of education, money spent per pupil, the quality of the teachers goes,...and then immediately implement a program to ensure that every single public school in the country matches the quality of the "top 10"...money being no object whatsoever. That will give us a good start right there. The next thing we need to do is to overhaul our labor laws so that they greatly favor employees, rather than the employers...this means a high minimum wage, mandated training opportunities, a min of a month's vacation, strict enforcement to ensure ideal workplace environments, and so on and so forth... Lastly, to ensure that everyone truly has the same opportunity as everyone else, place a maximum limit on personal and corporate wealth, so that everyone pretty much enjoys the same standard of living as everyone else. Perhaps then, we would see the end of many of the social problems we experience today. What's that, again?...you're calling this socialism?? Oh, shucks, I thought I was doing good here...lol...

Perhaps an environment that encourages a less sedantry lifestyle and discourages fast food is a more robust and healthier solution.

Another excellent point, clark, couldn't agree with you more. If we truly care about the health of our children, then we need to pack the halls of every school board in the country to remove soda machines in the schools and fast food outlets in the school cafeteria, as well as making sure that every student gets a minimum of one half hour of actual physical activity a day. As they say, good habits developed as a child often last a lifetime...

But when it comes to the school bully, all of us really need to draw the line in the sand...as these are the people that turn out to be the true baddies in our society (as well as making life difficult for the rest of us). Socially maladjusted people have no place in the schools, or anywhere else for that matter....if giving them drugs is the only way to cure people of this problem (after other reasonable measures have been tried), so be it...if we have the tools to solve this sort of thing, we need to use them.

As for the part of removing parts of the brain...that's a LONG ways from merely giving various forms of medicine...we, as a society, really should know where to draw the line with this sort of thing...if we don't, then we've got some major problems...

Cindy, interesting post about the mentally ill...I'd have to admit I didn't think too much about those who have an illness but think nothing's wrong with them. From this standpoint, the problem lies with the people that are close to the ones that are suffering mental illness....surely they know that something's up, after all, these conditions don't develop overnight...my thing is, why don't they seek help?? This Debra Green was obviously crazy as a loon, and yet her husband just let it ride, as if it was no big deal? <shakes head> Dr. Green really should've had his head examined too...that's all I can say.... ??? We, as a society, need to do way, way more to help those that really need help...

B

clark · 2003-04-08 13:36:55

As long as people are taking these type of drugs under the supervision of a physician who has a stake in the patient's well-being, this should greatly limit the potential abuse by the user

We would hope, yet I am willing to bet that a great many of the children diagnosed with deficit disorders of some derivation are being misdiagnosedWhat's the old saying? "the road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

i agree we need to be reasonable about this, but encouraging the use of medication for these types of ills will invariably lead to a greater reliance on medication as the cure-all.

I have some great solutions for ya too....take the 10 ten secondary schools in the country, analyse them as far as the level of education, money spent per pupil, the quality of the teachers goes,...and then immediately implement a program to ensure that every single public school in the country matches the quality of the "top 10"...money being no object whatsoever

Excellent start, now, let me give you the next monket wrench to contend with: You increase the potential for opportunity for all individuals. Now, everyone has all these choices becuase they have received an excellent education. One, the value of that education decreases as each person learns what you have learned. CAse in point: the economic value of a high school diploma is low. Most people have it, so you're nothing special. Opprtunity hasn't changed much in this regard- in terms of competing against one another.

The real problem though is having all of these highly educated people with little or no real opportunity to USE these skills.

Case in point, the Middle East. What do we see? A large portion of the population receiving a great deal of education, but with little opportunity to employ this education. This leads to disenfranchisement, social instability, and crime. Urban cities have a notorious reputation for disenfranchisement becuase the children are told "graduate, and then you can get a job, and start your life." Kids graduate and find out that this isn't true.

Lastly, to ensure that everyone truly has the same opportunity as everyone else,

The idea is not to ensure everyone has the same opportunity, the idea is to maximize everyone's opportunity so they have as many choices as possible. The idea is to avoid the situation of "stuck here".

. If we truly care about the health of our children, then we need to pack the halls of every school board in the country to remove soda machines in the schools and fast food outlets in the school cafeteria, as well as making sure that every student gets a minimum of one half hour of actual physical activity a day.

Or perhaps we might create an environment where parents are better able to follow the activities of their children, instead of making choices between feeding them or 'being involved'. We could even encourage parents involvement in their childrens education by making their involvement a neccessary requirement for graduation (children whose parents cannot, or will not do this could be exempt by becoming an emancipated minor)

Socially maladjusted people have no place in the schools, or anywhere else for that matter....if giving them drugs is the only way to cure people of this problem (after other reasonable measures have been tried), so be it...if we have the tools to solve this sort of thing, we need to use them.

They said the same thing about the Jews right before they gassed them.

As for the part of removing parts of the brain...that's a LONG ways from merely giving various forms of medicine...we, as a society, really should know where to draw the line with this sort of thing...if we don't, then we've got some major problems...

Why? It IS a tool. You just said we should use the tools available to us.

See, you draw an arbitray line between incision and medication, yet both would have exactly the same results.

You and I can be sensible (hey, it is possible for me) and take a moderate approach. That's how it starts though.

After ten years of increased use of medication, where does it go from there? After 20? After 30? It pushes the boundary just a little bit further, so small, that at each step, we were reasonable, untill the very end, when we look back, and see how far we have actually gone.

It is the death by a thousand paper cuts, but death all the same.

Palomar · 2003-04-08 14:01:32

Cindy, interesting post about the mentally ill...I'd have to admit I didn't think too much about those who have an illness but think nothing's wrong with them. From this standpoint, the problem lies with the people that are close to the ones that are suffering mental illness....surely they know that something's up, after all, these conditions don't develop overnight...my thing is, why don't they seek help??

*Much of it is due to shame and fear. People are afraid it'll "get around" that a loved one has "mental problems." There still is a great level of derision and jeering even in our Western societies regarding mental illness. What many people still don't understand (it seems) is that the mind can be diseased or become ill, same as the body. But there is still a STIGMA attached to mental illness.

With the Debora Green situation, she had alienated her children from their father (if I'd been him, I would have fought back tooth and nail, and not continually turned the other cheek to her out of pity for her or whatever) and manipulated them to always protect and stand beside her -- to see it her way. The youngest child, Kelly, was either still too young and innocent or somehow had wisdom beyond her years not to be totally taken in by Debora; she could see that her father wasn't a terrible monster, as Debora tried to portray Mike as being (Kelly died in the fire). Mike was afraid Debora would totally turn the kids against him (he should have tried to nip the problem in the bud long before, and sought help for her; I'm not excusing him -- he was the sane adult in this out-of-control circumstance). Another factor at play in Mike's reticence to confront Debora's problems was fear of loss of prestige and social status should it "get around" that his wife is very mentally ill...and here he was, a very prestigious cardiologist and she also an M.D., living in an affluent neighborhood. There were so many interrlated factors involved.

That's usually the gist of the denial in all families: Shame and fear, particularly fear of social castigation, ostracization, the family being ridiculed and made fun of, etc.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-04-08 14:31:30

Excellent start, now, let me give you the next monket wrench to contend with: You increase the potential for opportunity for all individuals. Now, everyone has all these choices becuase they have received an excellent education. One, the value of that education decreases as each person learns what you have learned. CAse in point: the economic value of a high school diploma is low. Most people have it, so you're nothing special. Opprtunity hasn't changed much in this regard- in terms of competing against one another.
The real problem though is having all of these highly educated people with little or no real opportunity to USE these skills.
Case in point, the Middle East. What do we see? A large portion of the population receiving a great deal of education, but with little opportunity to employ this education. This leads to disenfranchisement, social instability, and crime. Urban cities have a notorious reputation for disenfranchisement becuase the children are told "graduate, and then you can get a job, and start your life." Kids graduate and find out that this isn't true.

Guess we need to figure out a way to create more jobs than there are people, i.e., create a labor shortage. The problem today is that there are more people than there are jobs, which limits opportunity for everyone. If a way could be found to perpetuate a permanent labor shortage, than the workers of the world would be able to call the shots, opportunities would be legion, wages would soar. If only this was true.... Anyone up for a Nobel Prize?

Quote
Socially maladjusted people have no place in the schools, or anywhere else for that matter....if giving them drugs is the only way to cure people of this problem (after other reasonable measures have been tried), so be it...if we have the tools to solve this sort of thing, we need to use them.

They said the same thing about the Jews right before they gassed them.

Unfair, unfair, unfair....I am judging people by their behavior, not who they are. A reformed bully has the same rights as everyone else...but people who commit acts of aggression against others have no rights, so long as they continue that kind of behavior. I, myself, have the right to live in a society that is free from people that are a threat to me, from schoolyard bullies to the cold-blooded killer. We, as a society, are obligated to ensure that these types of people do not infringe upon our rights...and if it means taking away their rights as sovereign individuals, so be it. Isn't that what jailing criminals is all about? If you've been following the news lately, laws are being passed all over the country that specifically target schoolyard bullies....which is about time, imo. You gotta go after these people in their formative stages, not after they've grown up and become full-fledged criminals.

You and I can be sensible (hey, it is possible for me) and take a moderate approach. That's how it starts though.

If you're thinking that that humanity is incapable of taking the moderate approach, I think you're mistaken. If this was true, we as humans would have been extinct a long time ago. Collectively deciding what is right and what is not is what civilization is all about, and if we're not capable of doing that, well, I guess we're doomed. What a bummer...

In all seriousness, however, as long as people are able to speak out freely (The Emperer has no clothes!), as long as enough people practice common sense and intelligence, as long as most people take the high road in terms of interacting with others, I think we'll be alright as a society. After all, we've gotten this far, haven't we? (pitfalls along the way notwithstanding) ....

clark · 2003-04-08 14:54:53

The problem today is that there are more people than there are jobs, which limits opportunity for everyone. If a way could be found to perpetuate a permanent labor shortage, than the workers of the world would be able to call the shots, opportunities would be legion, wages would soar.

What behaviour leads to more people than jobs available?

Unfair, unfair, unfair....I am judging people by their behavior, not who they are.

Okay, a bit unfair- but I got your attention.
You are juding people on a set of exhibited behaviour patterns. Who decides what is and isn't acceptable? How is it decided? How is it changed? How long before simple infractions, like jay walking, are considered to be cause for treatment?

If you want to know how bad it can be, imagine living in 1940's America where they medicated anyone who broke with the morals of the time, or engaged in what was deemed to be "deviant and maladjusted" behaviour.

It once was thought to be deviant and maladjusted behaviour to date outside your race. Some still think this. Whose viewpoint do you use? Do you allow locals to figure it out? Now, mesh that thought with some areas in the Untied States South during the 50's.

Can you not imagine a more horrific world?

If you're thinking that that humanity is incapable of taking the moderate approach, I think you're mistaken.

Byron, I assume this remark is off the cuff, becuase you simply are NOT that stupid.

The Holocaust. The Native American Indian. Rawanda. Kosovo. Pol Pot. Stalin. Hitler. US internment of Japanese. Atomic bombs.

Should I continue?

Humanity IS capable of a moderate approach. However, it is far from certain wether or not we engage in a moderate approach, with anything. The history of Man is written in his blood.

Collectively deciding what is right and what is not is what civilization is all about, and if we're not capable of doing that, well, I guess we're doomed.

And we are both collectively discussing this. Just taking part in a bit of the human side.

After all, we've gotten this far, haven't we? (pitfalls along the way notwithstanding) ....

We were never in any real trouble until the 20th century. Our technological prowess is now approaching, or has approached, the point where a few individuals dictate the future of our species.

1,000 years ago, their was bloodletting on a massive scale, disease rampant- starvation, etc. But by and large, even in the worst of it, their were pockets of people that were not endangered.

Now, if someone gets nervous, 3 billion people vaporize in an instant.

clark · 2003-04-08 15:11:01

Since we are discussing bullies and violence, please take a moment to read the article at the end of this link:

http://www.ctnow.com/news....s-local

What do you feel is an appropriate punishment for the individuals involved with this crime?

Byron · 2003-04-09 08:16:20

What behaviour leads to more people than jobs available?

Good question....the person that is able to figure this one out deserves a Nobel Prize, imo...

You are juding people on a set of exhibited behaviour patterns. Who decides what is and isn't acceptable? How is it decided? How is it changed? How long before simple infractions, like jay walking, are considered to be cause for treatment?

You've got a point there...one only has to look at such things as the harsh sentencing guidelines for things such as mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. In any democratic society, it is the responsibility of the populace (which means apathy is most certainly NOT a good thing) to determine what laws are just and which ones are not...and adjust them accordingly. The jaywalker deserves nothing more than a ticket, if even that. People who kill in cold blood need to be put away, preferably for life. There should also be some sort of national, universal standard of justice and a clear defination of what is acceptable behavior and what is not (i.e. consensual sex between two adults is O.K., but forced sex or incest is not.)

Humanity IS capable of a moderate approach. However, it is far from certain wether or not we engage in a moderate approach, with anything. The history of Man is written in his blood.

Glad you think that humanity is capable of a moderate, rational approach, because we live in an era in which we really can extinct ourselves without too much difficulty. That's why I think it's imperative that we indentify the next Hilter or Stalin before they assume a position of power - and do something about them. (Don't ask me how, but it needs to be done nonetheless.) The world was almost destroyed in WWII. We probably won't be so lucky next time.

In short, I think it's more imperative than ever that we, as a race, figure out a way to mitigate those who are predisposed to carry out acts of violence against others, and to do it in a democratic, fair manner. For example, imagine if the doctor in the story that Cindy mentioned earlier was a top-level researcher in a Class IV bio-lab. Imagine the harm she would be capable of in a stituation like that...

What do you feel is an appropriate punishment for the individuals involved with this crime?

If it can be proved that the actions of these hoodlums really did result in the death of that man, then they should be charged - and punished for murder (following whatever sentencing guidelines currently in place).

B

clark · 2003-04-09 09:12:14

Good question....the person that is able to figure this one out deserves a Nobel Prize, imo...

Unfettered reproduction with society bearing the brunt of responsibility for supporting the individual behavior.

We have a responsibility to help and care for every human being born into this world. Yet we have very few limits, as a society, on an individuals right to bring people into this world.

We still react, we don't control.

The jaywalker deserves nothing more than a ticket, if even that.

I can agree, yet what about places such as Singapore, which will use cane lashes as a form of punishment for littering?

I will be the first to say that the punishment really dosen't fit the crime, but that's based on my world view, and I don't live in Singapore. You talk about universal rights and such, how exactyl can we have such a thing without trampling on indiviudal groups who may wish to do things differently?

Is a homogenous system of rights and rules really in our best interest? Wouldn't this decrease diversity and/or new ways of thinking/doing things?

There should also be some sort of national, universal standard of justice and a clear defination of what is acceptable behavior and what is not (i.e. consensual sex between two adults is O.K., but forced sex or incest is not.)

The Brit's say 16. The Yanks, 18. the Japanese consider you an adult at 20. Which one do we go with? What do we base it on?

Forced sex is wrong in any situation. Yet you also consisder incest in the same breath as forced sex, why?

Is incest wrong between two consenting adults? If you think so, why? What do you base that judgement on? Most people fall back on cultural moores or other ideological doctrines to help guide them in their value placement. So here we have an instance of crime without legitimate reason.

Forced sex with a child is wrong, in any situation. Yet how can we legitmately say that sex between siblings, both of consenting age, is wrong as well?

Or is it simply just one of those things that is wrong?

That's why I think it's imperative that we indentify the next Hilter or Stalin before they assume a position of power - and do something about them.

I can agree with you in principle. However, we will never be able to weed out all the 'bad seeds' as children. Indeed, even if successful, there will be more than enough adults who get screwed up as life progress that we will still be dealing with this issue.

A system of checks and balances that disipates centralized power in one individual would prevent many of the tragides we have seen in the past. Often times these tyrants rose to power through manipulation of the governing system, or outright coups.

In short, I think it's more imperative than ever that we, as a race, figure out a way to mitigate those who are predisposed to carry out acts of violence against others, and to do it in a democratic, fair manner.

I can agree, yet the problem I see is you rely on a democratic system to establish what is acceptable and unacceptable, and the punishment associated with it. So the majority decides what is acceptable, and what the punishments are- dosen't this open up a door for the minority to be at the mercy of any populous movement?

If it can be proved that the actions of these hoodlums really did result in the death of that man, then they should be charged - and punished for murder (following whatever sentencing guidelines currently in place).

You are a far more mericful person than I.

I always thought a system where a judge laid out several possible punishments, and the wronged party (or their family) chose which punishment to apply to the individual would provide a better sense of justice for the wronged.

Byron · 2003-04-09 09:43:17

We have a responsibility to help and care for every human being born into this world. Yet we have very few limits, as a society, on an individuals right to bring people into this world.

This has been a universal "right" since the beginning of human history. The one-child rule in China notwithstanding, the idea of child limits is gonna be a mighty tough sell in your typical democratic society. Probably the best approach to this is to educate our young that having childen is a burden upon the rest of society, and there are tremendous advantages to having just one child, etc. Also, I think our tax structure could perhaps be restructured to give a big tax break for having one child, a much smaller one for child No. 2, and a regressive tax structure for child No. 3 and above. These two things could very well do the trick of getting our population down over the long haul.

I will be the first to say that the punishment really dosen't fit the crime, but that's based on my world view, and I don't live in Singapore. You talk about universal rights and such, how exactyl can we have such a thing without trampling on indiviudal groups who may wish to do things differently?
Is a homogenous system of rights and rules really in our best interest? Wouldn't this decrease diversity and/or new ways of thinking/doing things?

I think this sort of thing has to be looked at a per-nation basis. We decide what's best for us in the US, Singapore decides what's best for them, and we all try and get along the best we can...

As for the incest thing, I think it's wrong because of health reasons...a child born of incest has a very high potential to be a burden upon the rest of society. Granted, siblings can use birth control and the like, but still...

I can agree, yet the problem I see is you rely on a democratic system to establish what is acceptable and unacceptable, and the punishment associated with it. So the majority decides what is acceptable, and what the punishments are- dosen't this open up a door for the minority to be at the mercy of any populous movement?

That's one of the risks of living in a democratic society. I mean, if the majority of people wanted to, they could take away the wealth of every millionaire in the country. (all you rich people...you'd better be watching over your shoulder! ) I just hope that we have enough common sense as a society not to infringe upon the rights of the majority. That's why the Bill of Rights is such a scared document in our society...

Would like to talk more, but I gotta run for now....

B

clark · 2003-04-09 13:59:09

This has been a universal "right" since the beginning of human history.

Um, no, it hasn't. What were the 'rights' for reproduction for slaves? How about eugenic laws- we've had those as recently as the 60's?

It isn't a right. it is a biological process of life. It is an integral part of what creates our environment.

The one-child rule in China notwithstanding, the idea of child limits is gonna be a mighty tough sell in your typical democratic society.

tell me why. What makes it a tough sell?

I think this sort of thing has to be looked at a per-nation basis. We decide what's best for us in the US, Singapore decides what's best for them, and we all try and get along the best we can...

Then how can we ever hope to establish some type of universal system of rights?

As for the incest thing, I think it's wrong because of health reasons...a child born of incest has a very high potential to be a burden upon the rest of society. Granted, siblings can use birth control and the like, but still...

Exactly! I find the idea repugnant myself, which is why I am drawn to considering the implications of it. This is one of those instances where reason fails, and emotion makes the decision. I call this the 'fun stuff'.

A child born of incest is indeed more likely to suffer health problems- yet if we make this the grounds for denial of legal procreation, then we have to bar those with hereditary diseases, gentic blindness or deafness traits that will be passed on, etc. Where is the line drawn?

Now, if we add technology and we are able to prevent unhealthy babies from being born from incest, would it be more okay for this behaviour?

That's one of the risks of living in a democratic society. I mean, if the majority of people wanted to, they could take away the wealth of every millionaire in the country.

True, which is why democracy is a bad thing. Rule of the mob is just as bad as rule by the One. A balance must be struck. Even in the US, property can be taken from others when it is in the general interest, yet such seizure is required to compensate the owner fairly and equitably.

dicktice · 2003-04-09 17:49:30

In all of the above ... I didn't once read any mention of recourse to the United Nations organization (as founded and supported and applied as originally intended in the 1940s, to mediate the kinds of problems you keep on about) by any one of you. Why not, for gosh sakes...?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-07 11:40:52

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#2 2003-04-07 13:04:12

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#3 2003-04-07 13:20:05

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#4 2003-04-07 14:39:12

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#5 2003-04-07 19:52:42

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#6 2003-04-08 01:17:22

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#7 2003-04-08 06:24:29

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#8 2003-04-08 07:20:49

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#9 2003-04-08 07:42:15

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#10 2003-04-08 07:57:45

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#11 2003-04-08 08:30:38

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#12 2003-04-08 09:09:57

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#13 2003-04-08 09:50:47

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#14 2003-04-08 10:47:58

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#15 2003-04-08 13:06:07

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#16 2003-04-08 13:36:55

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#17 2003-04-08 14:01:32

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#18 2003-04-08 14:31:30

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#19 2003-04-08 14:54:53

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#20 2003-04-08 15:11:01

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#21 2003-04-09 08:16:20

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#22 2003-04-09 09:12:14

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#23 2003-04-09 09:43:17

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#24 2003-04-09 13:59:09

Re: Violence - Case studies.

#25 2003-04-09 17:49:30

Re: Violence - Case studies.

Board footer