Child Psychopath

[Orleander]

So, what do you do with a child like this? Institutionalize him? Punish the parents for what he did?

7-Year-Old Breaks Into Zoo, Feeds Live Animals to Croc (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432085,00.html)

SYDNEY, Australia — A blank-faced 7-year-old boy broke into a popular Outback zoo, fed a string of animals to the resident crocodile and bashed several lizards to death with a rock, the zoo's director said Friday.

The boy jumped a security fence at the Alice Springs Reptile Center in central Australia early Wednesday, then went on a 30-minute killing spree, using a rock to slay three lizards, including the zoo's beloved, 20-year-old goanna, which he then fed to "Terry," an 11-foot, 440-pound vsaltwater crocodile, said zoo director Rex Neindorf.

The boy, whose deadly acts were caught on the zoo's security camera, also threw several live animals to Terry over the two fences surrounding the crocodile's enclosure, at one point climbing over the outer fence to get closer to the giant reptile. In the footage, the boy's face remains largely blank, Neindorf said.

"It was like he was playing a game," he said.

He killed 13 animals worth around $5,500, including a turtle, bearded dragons and thorny devil lizards, Neindorf said. Although none were rare, some would be difficult to replace, he said.

"We're horrified that anyone can do this, and saddened by the age of the child," Neindorf said.

Alice Springs police said they identified the boy, who lives locally, but were unable to press charges because of his age. Children under age 10 are not criminally liable under the law in the Northern Territory.

"By all accounts, he's quite a nasty 7-year-old," said Neindorf, who plans to sue the boy's parents. "If we can't put the blame onto the child, then someone has to accept the responsibility."

The zoo's security system, which relies on sensors, probably did not detect the boy because he is so small, Neindorf said.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/446323/1_61_a320.jpg

[Read-Only]

So, what do you do with a child like this? Institutionalize him? Punish the parents for what he did?


Yep, lock him away. He's a danger to himself and society. And make his parents pay in full for all damages - where were they while he was doing all this, eh? They are most certainly responsible for letting him loose on the world.

[one_raven]

So, what do you do with a child like this? Institutionalize him? Punish the parents for what he did?

You left out an option.
Institutionalize the parents.

[Asguard]

sadly your probably right that this child will BECOME a scopath.
Children cant be diognosed with personality disorders under the DMS-IV

as for a treatment, its almost impossable to treat someone with a personality disorder, the DMS-IV says that only long term behavorial theorpy has been shown to have any effect at all and even this was limited. Futher more people with this disorder are more likly to end up in jail or dead which limits access to them for controled resurch. This is one of the reasons im strongly against the death penelty is that if we are going to have any chance of helping kids like this we need resurch subjects and that means the serial killers and baby killers ect

[Norsefire]

The death penalty

NOT as a punishment; I understand that he is a child. No, I mean it as, a way of protecting society from a major risk.

[Orleander]

You left out an option.
Institutionalize the parents.

???why?

[one_raven]

The death penalty

NOT as a punishment; I understand that he is a child. No, I mean it as, a way of protecting society from a major risk.

Because he displays some signs, at a VERY EARLY age, that may demonstrate a propensity to be dangerous in the future, if lots of other cirteria has been met?

In that case, YOU should be put down as well.

[one_raven]

???why?

1.) The most likely scenario, by far, is that his parents are at fault for his behavior. There is a very good likeliehood he was abused, and if not, he is certainly not being raised correctly. Get him out of his environment and punish those who are really responsible for his behavior.
2.) Where were the parents of the 7 yeard old, when he was hoping the fence of the zoo into dangerous cages?

[Orleander]

can a person be born a psychopath? A sociopath? Or are they all made?

[nietzschefan]

I'd put him in an early form of special ops...perhaps Australia has military schools for this career path?

[Norsefire]

Because he displays some signs, at a VERY EARLY age, that may demonstrate a propensity to be dangerous in the future, if lots of other cirteria has been met?


At least, we should put a tag on him and monitor him closely.

[one_raven]

can a person be born a psychopath? A sociopath? Or are they all made?

As far as all the research I am familiar with suggests, there are some factors that someone CAN be born with to help the process along, but they ALL appear to be made.

Having a faulty frontal lobe, for example, could be a contributing factor, but without the systemic abuse or other dramatic shaping factors involved, the frontal lobe deformity would not be enough in and of itself.

At the VERY least, the family should be vigorously investigated.

[Asguard]

i agree with one raven TO A POINT, there are compleatly organic causes in SOME CASES but these seem to be reasonably reversable (execpt for dementia related). However these are unlikly in a child so young. Brain tumors arnt very common in that age group. Sexual abuse and\or long term physical abuse (both being the victom of and observing) are more likly. Its probable that his mother or father are being abused by the other spouse and that one or both are abusing him

[skaught]

Take him away from his parents, put him on some form of watch and therapy until he is 18

[Asguard]

longer than that skaught, You cant time limit therapy for a sociopath. It needs to be life long, even then im not sure i would trust him to be without supervision no matter how the therapy goes because sociopaths are in general really charismatic and can hide there disorder. Thats why it always surprises people when a serial killer is caught because they litterally are "the guy next door".

Mass murders are a compleatly different kettle of fish and there are generally signs with them (depression, resentment, anxiaty ect)

[one_raven]

He hasn't murdered anyone, but a few animals.

[Simon Anders]

Like a cat, he played with his kills.
Is it better when we let other people kill animals for us?
How about those who eat veal?

[Asguard]

one raven, sadly he most likly will

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20001011042

[skaught]

longer than that skaught, You cant time limit therapy for a sociopath. It needs to be life long, even then im not sure i would trust him to be without supervision no matter how the therapy goes because sociopaths are in general really charismatic and can hide there disorder. Thats why it always surprises people when a serial killer is caught because they litterally are "the guy next door".

Mass murders are a compleatly different kettle of fish and there are generally signs with them (depression, resentment, anxiaty ect)

Yeah, you're right, I meant to say until he is at least 18. I think that if by that age, he has shown significant signs of improvement, then maybe he could be weaned off of the therapy, but never the "watch".

[Asguard]

Simon Anders,

God sake, there is a HUGE difference between killing to eat and sociopathic tenancies. Only morons like PETA would concider that viewpoint correct

[one_raven]

one raven, sadly he most likly will

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20001011042

I am fully aware of the links and the likelihood, but that is no reason to keep a person under tight surveilance and constant therapy throughout his life.
Especially if that person shows significant signs of improvement.

I don't support punative measures for people simply due to a "likelihood" to commit crimes some time in the undetermined future.

There are lots of connections and correlations that can be drawn - none of which justify pre-emptive punishment in my view.

[Simon Anders]

Oh, I know. I was trying to be provocative. But think about it for a moment. He was cruel. But many animals are cruel just like he was. Also by proxy a good number of animals are treated poorly by us. IOW the sociopathology is spread out and hidden. So individuals are not sociopaths, but society is.

I just wanted to push on what I see as complacency.

The evil is always somewhere else.

[Asguard]

actually no, there isnt any animal on earth which is cruel. All animals bar humans act in there nature and only hunt to eat or to defend themselves and there young. Humans on the other hand hunt for fun and are also the only species which expects its members to show some regard for eachother.


In general most humans only kill or have animals killed in there name for food and clothing (leather). We CHOSE as a socaty to make sure this is done as humanely as possable. Now there are other justifyable reasons to kill, for protection, for medically nessary resurch which we have no other means of obtaining (wonder wether james ever uses medican because all of it is tested on animals) yet again this is not how a sociopath works

[one_raven]

actually no, there isnt any animal on earth which is cruel. All animals bar humans act in there nature and only hunt to eat or to defend themselves and there young. Humans on the other hand hunt for fun and are also the only species which expects its members to show some regard for eachother.

You can't say that with any valid certainty.
Ever see a whale appear to play with and torture a live seal before eating it?
Dolphins have been witnessed apparently gang-raping, terrorizing and essentially beating other dolphins to death without eating them.
Chimps have displayed some behavior which appears to be cruel and even vindictive.

[Asguard]

even if true what difference does it make?
you suggesting we abolish murder laws? rape laws? torture laws?

[one_raven]

even if true what difference does it make?
you suggesting we abolish murder laws? rape laws? torture laws?

Of course not.
Where did I even HINT at that?
Don't try and build such absurd strawmen with me.

I am just pointing out the fallacy in the claim that humans are the only animals capable of cruelty.

[Asguard]

im not talking about punishing him but rather the true stated purpose of the justice system, ie to protect sociaty. Its not his fault he is the way he is and it wont be his fault when he starts killing but he is a threat and needs to be taken seriously.

I agnologe your point that you cant punish people proactivly but by the same token the mental health system is set up to treat people with certain disorders. Thats the real distintion between a serial killer and someone suffering antisocial personality disorder. The second is a pschyological disorder and requires treatment both for his benift and the benifit of sociaty as a whole. The second is a label aplied to someones crimes, i do take your point that he isnt a serial killer until he starts killing and he is to young to get a diognosis of ASPD but it is fair to say that he is a seriously disterbed child and needs treatment for that problem.

After all, what would you suggest if we had known what ted bundy was capable of and did nothing

[John99]

The kid needs guidance, his parents are oblivious and dont know how to be parents. As a matter of fact he is probably perfectly normal but behind for his age and most likely he had no idea what he was doing. How does a kid disappear and break into a zoo long enough tio do this damage?

The zoo should have protected these animals better, it is THEIR responsibility and his parents should have protected him better. He needs love and he will be OK.

[John99]

How can you people say these things about this child?

[Search & Destroy]

I'd put him in an early form of special ops...perhaps Australia has military schools for this career path?

hahaha

I totally agree

[John99]

He fed the croc. In my estimation this child is at 4 year old level. With his hands he fed the croc, like a father caring for his brood. His instincts unsubdued he climbed the fence, his methods crude what to expect? You eat a steak dripping with blood? What to expect? Judge not this child. Give him a hug and a smile. Tell him he was wrong?

[Asguard]

actually these sorts of personalities are specifically banned from the millarty, we expect our troops for the most part to work as peace keepers and assist the federal police overseas in stabilisation missions and therefore we want our troops to be respected. You should have seen the amount of press an ACUSATION of detaine abuse by australian solders got and that was over the fact that adicuate acomidation couldnt be provided on the first night after capture for a POW and therefor he was kept in a dog kennel which was the only aviable secure enclosure.

Torture for instance is about to be made a specific federal offence and made extra trestrial so that an australian citizan involved or adding in a torture can be charged for ofences commited against australia.

basically there is no way in HELL he would ever be alowed to serve

[John99]

The question is what if this child does not understand suffering? Make him suffer? The case is closed/

[Asguard]

wouldnt make the slightest difference john. If i atached electrodes to your testicals would that make you empathise with an ant?

because to a sociopath we are all just THINGS, they cant feel empathy period, watching someone in pain excites them just like killing a random bad guy on the latest computer game excites a gamer. The difference is that in a sociopath its linked to sex as well which is why they are called sexual sadists

[one_raven]

There is also no way to know if this kid really is a sociopath or not from what we have presented here.
Even a real psychologist spending real time with him wouldn't enter lightly into that diagnosis - and if more than one interviewed him, they may not even agree.
Simply displaying apparent indifference to the animals he was feeding to the croc does not necessarily imply the kid is a sociopath - it is a lot more complex than that.

[Enmos]

The kid obviously has a psychological problem and might indeed grow up to be a psychopath. But, this here is the larger problem:

"He killed 13 animals worth around $5,500, including a turtle, bearded dragons and thorny devil lizards, Neindorf said. Although none were rare, some would be difficult to replace, he said."

Almost as disgusting in itself.

[Orleander]

Its disgusting that he didn't kill the rare ones or its disgusting that they would be difficult to replace?

[Norsefire]

He means it's disgusting that he killed the animals

[Avatar]

Feed the child to crocodiles. j/k

[Challenger78]

So, what do you do with a child like this? Institutionalize him? Punish the parents for what he did?



Some people are just born mad eh ?.

Ouchie..

Force a shrink on him.

[visceral_instinct]

Lock him up.

Before you get angry, that's not meant as a punishment, it's to keep him somewhere he cannot hurt others.

[Norsefire]

VI, that's what I said, except why lock him up? Execute him, and then we don't have to waste resources and facilities.

Not as a punishment, but as maintenance

[Simon Anders]

actually no, there isnt any animal on earth which is cruel. This is not correct and many a cat owner has had the mundane experience at home. Have you never seen a cat torture a mouse or bird for a long time before killing it.

All animals bar humans act in there nature and only hunt to eat or to defend themselves and there young.
This is an overgeneralization. Many predators kill and forget where they stashed food. Animals are known to kill and then simply walk away. They kill if territories are crossed.

Dolphins, for example, will even rape other members of their own species.

You are idealizing animals.


Humans on the other hand hunt for fun and are also the only species which expects its members to show some regard for eachother. Tell that to members of a pack. Social animals definitely have rules and expectations around regard, respect etc.


In general most humans only kill or have animals killed in there name for food and clothing (leather). We CHOSE as a socaty to make sure this is done as humanely as possable. Factory processes speak against this 'we' you are talking about. There have been some better recent trends but 'we' have very mixed practices in relation to this.

Now there are other justifyable reasons to kill, for protection, for medically nessary resurch which we have no other means of obtaining (wonder wether james ever uses medican because all of it is tested on animals) yet again this is not how a sociopath works We have many hunters who hunt for fun and for the trophy. As one counterexample amongst many.

[Avatar]

Not only he's idealizing animals, he's not accepting that he's an animal as well.

[Simon Anders]

Asguard,
I have to agree with
John99 here.

He fed the croc. In my estimation this child is at 4 year old level. With his hands he fed the croc, like a father caring for his brood. His instincts unsubdued he climbed the fence, his methods crude what to expect? You eat a steak dripping with blood? What to expect? Judge not this child. Give him a hug and a smile. Tell him he was wrong?

There are many people who own snakes. They go to the store buy baby mice and even adult mice and drop these in the tanks with their pets - because certain snakes, perhaps most, will only eat live food. The rodents - mammals - are terrified and get crushed to death.

Are these snake owners sociopathic?

Look I agree the kid has problems, in fact serial killers tend to be cruel to animals when they are children.

But I want us to stop pathologizing small portions of the world and start noticing how widespread patterns are and also to take responsibility for where we accept or even demand pathology.

[Enmos]

Its disgusting that he didn't kill the rare ones or its disgusting that they would be difficult to replace?

It's disgusting that they have to mention how much it cost them. I understand they are concerned with the cost of the situation but it hardly seems the right place or moment to bring it up.
I guess in the end it's just business..

[Enmos]

The tendency to see animals as objects or things that are for your own benefit, and if not are a nuisance, is what's wrong with the world. Kids do pick up on that you know..

[Betrayer0fHope]

Maybe he's just really smart. Ever thought of that? :\

[Betrayer0fHope]

Execute him... as maintenance

:eek:

[Enmos]

Maybe he's just really smart. Ever thought of that? :\

Are you talking about me ? :D

[Betrayer0fHope]

To everyone. I actually hadn't read your opinion when I posted that. He's smart, he understands life is meaningless, and only something which exists. He can see things from a purely objective view point, searching for knowledge by conducting experiments. He seems perfectly fine to me.

[Enmos]

To everyone. I actually hadn't read your opinion when I posted that. He's smart, he understands life is meaningless, and only something which exists. He can see things from a purely objective view point, searching for knowledge by conducting experiments. He seems perfectly fine to me.

I couldn't disagree more. He doesn't seem to have any understanding of life at all.

[Simon Anders]

To everyone. I actually hadn't read your opinion when I posted that. He's smart, he understands life is meaningless, and only something which exists. He can see things from a purely objective view point, searching for knowledge by conducting experiments. He seems perfectly fine to me.And if he experiments on you?

[Simon Anders]

Betrayer of Hope,
When you read this
Originally Posted by Norsefire
Execute him... as maintenance
and responded with this:
:eek:
you can simply think of Norsefire as an experimenter like the kid. You know life is meaningless, etc.....

[Betrayer0fHope]

Betrayer of Hope,
When you read this

and responded with this:

you can simply think of Norsefire as an experimenter like the kid. You know life is meaningless, etc.....

I was just surprised Norse would say something like that. I thought he was for morals and junk.

[Simon Anders]

:eek:

I was just surprised Norse would say something like that. I thought he was for morals and junk. His morals are sometimes absolute and very harsh. Not a lot of grey area. But now I understand the emoticon.

[JDawg]

His morals are sometimes absolute and very harsh. Not a lot of grey area. But now I understand the emoticon.

His morals are best described as "Texas Evangelical". Basically, kill the fags, and keep the blacks out of white bathrooms.

[Norsefire]

I was just surprised Norse would say something like that. I thought he was for morals and junk.

'Course I'm for morals. Torturing animals isn't very moral, don't you think so?

I feel that society would be alot better off if we would just be willing to do the dirty work. Compassion, sometimes, is a weakness.

[Norsefire]

Betrayer of Hope,
When you read this

you can simply think of Norsefire as an experimenter like the kid. You know life is meaningless, etc.....

Regardless, you came to the wrong conclusion.

I value life highly, especialy human life. However, this does not mean I value all human beings equally, or that I even value all of them.

The cold-blooded, twisted, evil, and corrupt, I don't value much, if at all.

I value the willing, the hard-working, and the well-meaning. Not the vicious criminal scum.

[Simon Anders]

Regardless, you came to the wrong conclusion.I was pointing out that his incredible flexibility when it came to the kid should also apply to you. I did not think you were an experimenter or thought of yourself that way.

[Norsefire]

I was pointing out that his incredible flexibility when it came to the kid should also apply to you. I did not think you were an experimenter or thought of yourself that way.


What is an "experimenter"?
My beliefs are simple: the righteous and dedicated should be treated with civility and humanity.

The vicious and twisted mean less to me than cockroaches, and really they are only tools. After all, they are doing nothing for us, why not take advantage of the biological opportunity?

You do realize how much scientific progress we could achieve if we just stopped focusing on compassion for criminals and thought logically, about using them as test subjects?

In a way, those criminals make amends for their actions. In such a situation, scientists need not worry about ethics or morals in their experiments, and the information gained could be valuable to the rest of humanity.

Why show compassion to criminals?

Of course, this child is no criminal and if indeed he was born as he was, it is cruel to punish him. Execution is merely maintenance, ensuring that he is not given the chance to hurt anyone. It isn't punishment.

[OilIsMastery]

Feed the parents and the boy to Terry.

[Asguard]

Norsefire you are a fucking psycho, he is a SEVEN YEAR OLD FOR FUCK SAKE.

You know something, about the only thing your posts do is make me hit the cricket ball harder pituring it as YOUR HEAD

[Norsefire]

Norsefire you are a fucking psycho, he is a SEVEN YEAR OLD FOR FUCK SAKE

We can give him a second chance. Why not? However, there has to be a point where we say "enough".

[Simon Anders]

You do realize how much scientific progress we could achieve if we just stopped focusing on compassion for criminals and thought logically, about using them as test subjects?
If you do this - and you should know it has been done before - I would consider you a criminal. I would want you in jail.

In a way, those criminals make amends for their actions. In such a situation, scientists need not worry about ethics or morals in their experiments, and the information gained could be valuable to the rest of humanity.Sounds eerily like the Nazis.

Why show compassion to criminals? I thought at last announcement you were Christian. My suggestion would be to approach Christian counselors or read some of the New Testament. There are answers to this kind of question there.

For me as a non-christian, compassion is not something I aspire to, it is something I often find present. I also notice that many people who do horrible things are not criminals and many criminals are not immoral people. How many of the founders of the USA would the British have put in prison if they had won?

Criminals are humans. I can't convince you, of course, to feel compassion. That's like trying to talk you into falling in love with some woman or telling you why you should like chocolate cake if you don't.

But I can feel sorry for you for being so cut off.

[Norsefire]

If you do this - and you should know it has been done before - I would consider you a criminal. I would want you in jail. For being rational and logical?

Besides, it certainly would be a crime for me to get a criminal and experiment (even though I would do so to better human knowledge)
However, who says the government can't subsidize and legalize such a thing? At least they'd have done one thing smart.


Look, there are some things we could learn so much more easily by being limitless in our scientific inquiries. Criminals provide valuable opportunities where we would be able to experiment without committing a wrong.

Sounds eerily like the Nazis. The Nazis experimented on the innocent, or their own version of "criminal" which wasn't decided by public consensus.

I thought at last announcement you were Christian. My suggestion would be to approach Christian counselors or read some of the New Testament. There are answers to this kind of question there. I am not a "by the book" Christian. I am mostly a "philosophical" Christian. And I do believe in compassion...for the good.

For me as a non-christian, compassion is not something I aspire to, it is something I often find present. I also notice that many people who do horrible things are not criminals and many criminals are not immoral people. How many of the founders of the USA would the British have put in prison if they had won? That's a different story. I'm talking about murderers; I'm talking about rapists. I'm talking about peadophiles. How are they not criminals? There are truly vile scum out there

....and we pay for them to have

food
entertainment
life

They owe us!

We can all agree that they are criminals, too. At least, some of them.

Criminals are humans. Bad humans
I can't convince you, of course, to feel compassion. I do feel compassion. I am empathetic. I would not be able to argue from any viewpoint if I wasn't. However, that doesn't mean I have to be tolerant nor does it mean I have to like criminals.



As I said, they are our only opportunity for true unrestricted science.

[Simon Anders]

For being rational and logical?A burglar can be rational and logical. And a person being moral can be also. So, no. Not because you were rational or logical - if you were.

Besides, it certainly would be a crime for me to get a criminal and experiment (even though I would do so to better human knowledge)
And now you seem to understand. Good.

However, who says the government can't subsidize and legalize such a thing? At least they'd have done one thing smart.Governments have. I think it is immoral.

Look, there are some things we could learn so much more easily by being limitless in our scientific inquiries. Criminals provide valuable opportunities where we would be able to experiment without committing a wrong. Where I would say you would be committing a wrong.

The Nazis experimented on the innocent, or their own version of "criminal" which wasn't decided by public consensus. So if they had had a nationwide vote

'Are Jews, Gypsies, the retarded, gays, etc. criminals?'

and the German public voted yes,
it would have been OK to experiment on Jews?

Essentially slavery had consensus amongst voters. Was it OK?

You are such a relativist. Whatever consensus is is moral.

I am not a "by the book" Christian. I am mostly a "philosophical" Christian. And I do believe in compassion...for the good. So easy compassion. Sort of Christianity light.

That's a different story. I'm talking about murderers; I'm talking about rapists. I'm talking about peadophiles. How are they not criminals? There are truly vile scum out there And those who would experiment on them, even them, would join them in being scum.

....and we pay for them to have

food
entertainment
life

They owe us!

God, I won a grant once. I hope the organization that gave me the grant doesn't think they can operate on my spine or something.


Bad humans
I do feel compassion. I am empathetic. I would not be able to argue from any viewpoint if I wasn't. However, that doesn't mean I have to be tolerant nor does it mean I have to like criminals.No one said you had to like anyone. In fact I never even said you had to feel compassion for them. I think it's sad how not compassionate you are in relation to them.

As I said, they are our only opportunity for true unrestricted science. So science should be free, but not people.

[Norsefire]

A burglar can be rational and logical. And a person being moral can be also. So, no. Not because you were rational or logical - if you were. It'd be for the greater good.

Governments have. I think it is immoral.
Why? Criminals are immoral. At least, many are.

What is wrong, then?
Where I would say you would be committing a wrong. You don't explain your reasoning. Mine is simple.

Criminals harm society. Society has no obligation to show humanity to those that harm it. A smart society would use such scum for their own benefit.
So if they had had a nationwide vote

'Are Jews, Gypsies, the retarded, gays, etc. criminals?'

and the German public voted yes,
it would have been OK to experiment on Jews? If the German public truly viewed those groups as such, my first question would be to those groups: "why do you remain in Germany?"

Besides, they might be culturally out of place, but they aren't actually harming anyone. So no.

Criminals, in the sense of serial killers, serial rapists, etc, do harm people.
You are such a relativist. Whatever consensus is is moral.

Morality is subjective. It is not objective, therefore morality can be whatever you want. For the social unit, however, it is important that society agree upon morals in order to opreate.

And those who would experiment on them, even them, would join them in being scum.
Why?


God, I won a grant once. I hope the organization that gave me the grant doesn't think they can operate on my spine or something.
Did you attack, rape, and kill and harm members of that organization?

So science should be free, but not people.

Imagine the good that can come out of it. The discoveries we make on a few criminals can help good people in need.

[Simon Anders]

It'd be for the greater good. So you think. Because you think you know all the effects of experimenting on criminals. You think the effects would be the visible ones you imagine in your head. Of course the effects would be much more complicated. We would all suffer from that kind of state sanctioned immorality.

Why? Criminals are immoral. At least, many are. Doesn't give me the right or the desire to treat them as if they were not human.

What is wrong, then?
You don't explain your reasoning. Mine is simple. And immoral. Criminals do not become things, they are still people. We can try to make ourselves safe. We can punish or try to rehabilitate. But we do not get to treat them like things. That's my morality. You have to understand that I cannot prove what is good and moral. You don't feel compassion for them and so you will never, ever understand my position. I do, and so I will never ever find yours moral.

Criminals harm society. Society has no obligation to show humanity to those that harm it. How odd that every society does anyway.

A smart society would use such scum for their own benefit.
If the German public truly viewed those groups as such, my first question would be to those groups: "why do you remain in Germany?"So it would be moral because they should have left.

Besides, they might be culturally out of place, but they aren't actually harming anyone. So no.Hitler thought the Jews were harming people. Many people think gays are harming people even when they have sex in private and certainly if they kiss in the street.

Criminals, in the sense of serial killers, serial rapists, etc, do harm people. On this we agree.


Morality is subjective. It is not objective, therefore morality can be whatever you want. For the social unit, however, it is important that society agree upon morals in order to opreate. Yes. And I don't agree with experimentation on criminals. And I think your idea would lose a popular vote.


Why?Because they are not things.

Did you attack, rape, and kill and harm members of that organization? I was pointing out what I saw as a flaw in your logic. They pay, they get to treat me like an object. A lot of employers do think this. And I think they are immoral.

Imagine the good that can come out of it. The discoveries we make on a few criminals can help good people in need. And again. You think you can see all the effects of such a practice. But you really have no idea how experimenting on criminals will affect the way we all start to look at each other.

And again. You are clearly a moral relativist.

[Asguard]

SA, why do you bother?
why do you keep banging your head against that wall?

[Norsefire]

So you think. Because you think you know all the effects of experimenting on criminals. You think the effects would be the visible ones you imagine in your head. Of course the effects would be much more complicated. We would all suffer from that kind of state sanctioned immorality. What effects? We experiment on them, and then we can dispose of them. Or, use their bodies for transplants or further experiments.

Doesn't give me the right or the desire to treat them as if they were not human. They aren't human.

And immoral. Criminals do not become things, they are still people. We can try to make ourselves safe. We can punish or try to rehabilitate. But we do not get to treat them like things. That's my morality. You have to understand that I cannot prove what is good and moral. You don't feel compassion for them and so you will never, ever understand my position. I do, and so I will never ever find yours moral.
And experimentation is, in a way, a punishment


How odd that every society does anyway.
Really? Which would those be? I know of none.

Hitler thought the Jews were harming people. Many people think gays are harming people even when they have sex in private and certainly if they kiss in the street. he thought they were. Hardly compelling proof. We have much proof that rapists do, indeed, harm people.

Yes. And I don't agree with experimentation on criminals. And I think your idea would lose a popular vote. In the Christian West?
Yes

However any logical person would understand my reasoning: unlimited science can have benefits, but we can't harm innocent people. Criminals are not innocent and therefore they owe us.


Because they are not things.
I was pointing out what I saw as a flaw in your logic. They pay, they get to treat me like an object. A lot of employers do think this. And I think they are immoral. They are things. That's why we lock them up...and treat them as property.

And again. You think you can see all the effects of such a practice. But you really have no idea how experimenting on criminals will affect the way we all start to look at each other. We can emphasize humanity and compassion while at the same time condeming the twisted.

And again. You are clearly a moral relativist.
Like everyone?
SA, why do you bother?
why do you keep banging your head against that wall?
Why not refute my points? Asguard, you may have a good heart but you are too trusting and too willing to show mercy. That is not always a good thing.

[Simon Anders]

Funny I almost asked you the same thing in this thread or maybe another. Honestly, it is almost pleasant to actually speak to someone with these views. I can't tell if Norsefire is serious or role playing - I know Norsefire, you don't like when people doubt you this way. But what it gives me is an opportunity to actually come in contact with the mindset he has or pretends to have.

In person I would not feel safe going into this stuff with someone I so heartily disagreed with.

So I get to see what happens. What happens when I point out _________? Oh, he comes back with this. I notice where he subtley shifts his argument without admitting anything, perhaps without noticing. I get a feel for the exact shape of his worldview and how he justifies it for himself. Sometimes it is in ways I would not have thought of.

And then I often get bored and give up.

But there is something in this. Right now, anyway.

[Norsefire]

I don't understand why people always say I am to be "role playing" just to "get a rise out of people"


I don't understand what is so wrong with my views. I support a strong social unit and pushing Humanity forward.

[flameofanor5]

You left out an option.
Institutionalize the parents.

Yeah, the only people in this story that are bigger idiots than him are his parents.

[Simon Anders]

What effects? We experiment on them, and then we can dispose of them. Or, use their bodies for transplants or further experiments. Right. You see only the direct physical effects. You do not even for a moment consider the effects on how people will come to see each other and their government or doctors once they realize these experiments are happening. It is the same with your naivte around privacy issues.

Oh, the guilty will get caught more and the innocent have nothing to hide.

But what are we teaching children about who they are, when their movements are monitored by cameras all the time and they know that as adults they will ALWAYS be under a distrustful eye.

How will this educate them and us?

What are the side effects? we all get dehumanized. When something is done in our name that is inhuman, it dehumanizes us if we accept it as normal.

It is almost as if you see us as billiard balls. Hit the bad one he goes in the corner pocket. Don't hit the good one.

But humans, at least some of them, are far more subtle and are affected by the laws you wish to pass in ways that are hard to predict, especially by people like you who never even consider this.

The world you would make would have people with no self-respect.

They aren't human. So you say.



Really? Which would those be? I know of none. What you are proposing is illegal in the country you live in. I hope you have the integrity to openly admit you are wrong here. It is illegal in the US, even in Texas, to experiment, especially in the ways you are suggesting no prisoners, even murderers.

he thought they were. Hardly compelling proof. We have much proof that rapists do, indeed, harm people. So the government would have to show that its justice system is a good one, not unfair along racial lines, for example.

In the Christian West?
YesWell, there you go. So it is immoral where you live.

They are things. No, they're not.

Like everyone? Well, no. Many religious people and many secular people are not relativists. In fact you, for example on the gay issue, seem to present yourself as not a relativist. Just thought you needed a little heads up, because you are one. If there is consensus then it is ok. When there is consensus against you, you are not a relativist. When you are presenting your ideas of how things should be you say it will be OK because there will be consensus.

So you shift, when it suits you, between saying

certain things are just wrong, period
to saying that if we get consensus then things that seem wrong now will actually be good.

Make up your mind.

[Simon Anders]

I don't understand why people always say I am to be "role playing" just to "get a rise out of people"After countless posts bemoaning homosexuals you said in one of your posts that you were attracted to a few men. I find it hard to believe a conservative like you are supposed to be would toss that out like you did. There was another post also where both Orleander and I called you out on where your persona slipped.

I am not sure you are role playing, but I often wonder. Perhaps you are just very odd, or very impulsive and never notice the contradictions.

I don't understand what is so wrong with my views. I support a strong social unit and pushing Humanity forward.You do understand why people react the way they do to your ideas, right. I don't mean you see why they are right, but you do understand why we, for example, react negatively to the idea of experimenting on criminals. Are you capable of entering the mindset of others?

[Norsefire]

Right. You see only the direct physical effects. You do not even for a moment consider the effects on how people will come to see each other and their government or doctors once they realize these experiments are happening. It is the same with your naivte around privacy issues. Of course I consider social effects. I see none. The people will realize that the "people" being experimented on earned and chose their fate.

Oh, the guilty will get caught more and the innocent have nothing to hide.

But what are we teaching children about who they are, when their movements are monitored by cameras all the time and they know that as adults they will ALWAYS be under a distrustful eye.

How will this educate them and us?

What are the side effects?

It is almost as if you see us as billiard balls. Hit the bad one he goes in the corner pocket. Don't hit the good one.

But humans, at least some of them, are far more subtle and are affected by the laws you wish to pass in ways that are hard to predict, especially by people like you who never even consider this.

The world you would make would have people with no Oh, the guilty will get caught more and the innocent have nothing to hide.

But what are we teaching children about who they are, when their movements are monitored by cameras all the time and they know that as adults they will ALWAYS be under a distrustful eye.

How will this educate them and us?

What are the side effects?

It is almost as if you see us as billiard balls. Hit the bad one he goes in the corner pocket. Don't hit the good one.

But humans, at least some of them, are far more subtle and are affected by the laws you wish to pass in ways that are hard to predict, especially by people like you who never even consider this.

The world you would make would have people with no self-respect.
self-respect.
It depends on how we teach it. If we did have such "big brother", it doesn't mean we have to teach the children that they are animals to be monitored.

We could teach: "the government is our friend and our people are united, and so we like to help each other and our friend"
So you say.


So as the truth is.
What you are proposing is illegal in the country you live in. I hope you have the integrity to openly admit you are wrong here. It is illegal in the US, even in Texas, to experiment, especially in the ways you are suggesting no prisoners, even murderers.
That's not what you said, though. Texas doesn't show compassion to criminals, even if we don't experiment on them. In fact Texas has the highest execution rate in the US (over a hundred executions a year)


Well, there you go. So it is immoral where you live. Morality can change
No, they're not. Why?

Well, no. Many religious people and many secular people are not relativists. In fact you, for example on the gay issue, seem to present yourself as not a relativist. Of course I am a relativist. I said "homosexuality is wrong in my opinion"
Or at least, I hope you inferred that because that is the case
However, my opinion of homosexuality has changed anyway so it's irrelevant to discuss.
Most of my concern with it has to deal with cultural change
So you shift, when it suits you, between saying

certain things are just wrong, period
to saying that if we get consensus then things that seem wrong now will actually be good.

Make up your mind.
Certain things are wrong, period, when the consensus says so. Remember, society is made up of individuals in agreement. Therefore you can be totally immoral in a certain society, but completely fine in another.

[Norsefire]

After countless posts bemoaning homosexuals you said in one of your posts that you were attracted to a few men. I find it hard to believe a conservative like you are supposed to be would toss that out like you did. There was another post also where both Orleander and I called you out on where your persona slipped. I can find a few men attractive and even be a homosexual without thinking it is right.

I am not sure you are role playing, but I often wonder. Perhaps you are just very odd, or very impulsive and never notice the contradictions. Believe me, I would not be hear, having over 7,000 posts, just "role playing"

My views are a product of many things. I don't find them odd at all.
understand why people react the way they do to your ideas, right. I don't mean you see why they are right, but you do understand why we, for example, react negatively to the idea of experimenting on criminals. Are you capable of entering the mindset of others?

Of course. I just don't see why you find the idea of experimenting on CRIMINALS

Repeat, CRIMINALS

..wrong

[Asguard]

SA, do you piture osam in his cave somewhere when reading norsefires posts, talking about the "infidels"? or the english invaders of Australia?, the slave drivers of the US? or the nazis?

[Norsefire]

I don't talk about infidels and I don't promote slavery.

[Simon Anders]

I don't talk about infidels and I don't promote slavery.

Dear NF,
remember your arguments against homosexuals.

You kept saying tradition is important. We can't just allow new behaviors that were once thought to be immoral.

Well, tradition, generally, in the USA is NOT to allow experimentation on prisoners. There are exceptions but generally these have been seen as immoral. And none of them were as extreme as what you are suggesting.

Tradition goes against what you are saying.

How can you come along and break traditions?
Traditions keep national and social identity.

And so on.

Why do you, suddenly, get to change traditions given how much your arguments have rested on tradition in the past?

[Asguard]

its the same atitude, "they arnt human" it has been used for centuries and always has ended with massive atrocities which is exactly what you are proposing hitler

[Simon Anders]

Of course I consider social effects. I see none. You do not see us Norsefire. You do not see people. You see ideas. Why do you think it is against the law? In great part because people know how it would make them feel if they knew such things were happening. You do not see what is.


That's not what you said, though. Texas doesn't show compassion to criminals, even if we don't experiment on them. And the reason Texas does not experiment on them is because Texans have compassion for them and also the Supreme Court would also - under cruel and unusual treatment.


Morality can change But, Oh, tradition, tradition.

[Norsefire]

Dear NF,
remember your arguments against homosexuals.

You kept saying tradition is important. We can't just allow new behaviors that were once thought to be immoral.

Entirely correct....within this specific society. You can't force it, that is. However if the people willingly gave their consent to changing the society, then it's fine.

Well, tradition, generally, in the USA is NOT to allow experimentation on prisoners. There are exceptions but generally these have been seen as immoral. And none of them were as extreme as what you are suggesting. They can change their minds, especially after they see the logic.

Tradition goes against what you are saying. Yes, and that's why I can't force it on society the same way crazy liberals can't force their nonsense on society (or at least, shouldn't). I can only try to persuade people to agree with me.

How can you come along and break traditions?
Traditions keep national and social identity.
I'm not breaking tradition. I do, in my dealings with society, conform.

its the same atitude, "they arnt human" it has been used for centuries and always has ended with massive atrocities which is exactly what you are proposing hitler
Oh sorry, I forgot that you, asguard, just love rapists and peadophiles.

[flameofanor5]

Can't you usually figure out someone's personally at around the age 7 or 8? This kid's a psycho, contain him please. :[

[Asguard]

"People under 18 years old who fit the criteria of a personality disorder are usually not diagnosed with such a disorder, although they may be diagnosed with a related disorder. In order to diagnose an individual under the age of 18 with a personality disorder, symptoms must be present for at least one year. Antisocial personality disorder, by definition, cannot be diagnosed at all in persons under 18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder

[Asguard]

SA, i found something quite interesting while looking that up

does this sound like anyone to you

"The disorder typically involves unusual levels of instability in mood; "black and white" thinking, or "splitting"; chaotic and unstable interpersonal relationships, self-image, identity, and behavior; as well as a disturbance in the individual's sense of self. In extreme cases, this disturbance in the sense of self can lead to periods of dissociation.[3] These disturbances can have a pervasive negative impact on many or all of the psychosocial facets of life. This includes difficulties maintaining relationships in work, home, and social settings.":p

[Norsefire]

It sounds like alot of people here.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Doesn't Norsefire think punishment is bad? He said jail time on first offenses were stupid, but I'm not sure if he suggested we just kill them or let them go.

[Norsefire]

Doesn't Norsefire think punishment is bad? He said jail time on first offenses were stupid, but I'm not sure if he suggested we just kill them or let them go.

Give them a second chance

And perhaps a third

Afterwards, it's more a matter of maintenance and common sense that we execute them

It's fair

[John99]

They should give the kid his own television show. Something kind of nature show.

[Simon Anders]

Entirely correct....within this specific society. You can't force it, that is. However if the people willingly gave their consent to changing the society, then it's fine.That is not how you argued it before. You talked about tradition, period.

They can change their minds, especially after they see the logic.I thought morality was subjective.

Yes, and that's why I can't force it on society the same way crazy liberals can't force their nonsense on society (or at least, shouldn't). I can only try to persuade people to agree with me. But it is legal to have gay parades. It was legal when you were complaining about it.

I'm not breaking tradition. I do, in my dealings with society, conform.
If you conform with today's society you are breaking tradition.

[Simon Anders]

Oh sorry, I forgot that you, asguard, just love rapists and peadophiles.
So those are the options
love
or
see someone as not human.

You must be a frightening boyfriend.

[Roman]

The death penalty

NOT as a punishment; I understand that he is a child. No, I mean it as, a way of protecting society from a major risk.

No no no.
The government should put him in training for their elite group of assassins.

[Roman]

Is the kid a sociopath? I don't think so, but then, I don't have a psychology degree, like all you other internet people.
He clearly doesn't have any idea of personal property, but I find nothing odd about a seven year-old boy fascinated with feeding animals to a 440 lb reptile. It seems natural. I'd be more worried about the people who would get upset over this sort of thing.

I guess you socially-whipped fags will get upset with it, though. Self-domestication and all that. Oh well.

[Lordznebula5]

Just send him to get therapy. I don't see him as this thread's title.

While we all may be shocked at the abruptness of his act and his low age I don't think this warrants him as a psychopath :rolleyes: as compared to the many adult criminals out here who have some mother raping murderous nasty chopping of someone to bits sort of deals.:eek:


This kids not as bad right now. :shrug:

[TimeTraveler]

There is no evidence this child is a psychopath or sociopath. Just about everyone has done stupid stuff at 6 years old. Feeding the animals in a zoo is something everyone is tempted to do at that age, not because they are a psychopath who likes killing animals for fun, but because it's a zoo and they want to see how the crock hunts.

The point is, there are plenty of sane reasons why people would feed crocks and it's not the same as torturing animals. It's like if you had a pet snake and you feed it mice or rats, you aren't a psychopath for doing that. I would even say you aren't a psychopath if you set a mouse trap and the trap kills the mouse.

People have to be taught right from wrong, and children aren't going to instinctively know it's wrong to feed animals. Also according to psychiatry only adults can be diagnosed as true psychopaths. This is because as children, 100% of all children exhibit psychopath like behavior until they reach the age of reason where they grow a conscience and develop their frontal lobes.

So no, I don't think this kid is a psychopath. If this kid were 14 and still doing stuff like this then I'd be more concerned. And I don't think this kid needs therapy. Yes it's wrong to feed animals in a zoo, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that 6 year olds will do stuff like this.

A psychopath is an individual without a conscience. A psychopath might kill and torture animals as a child, but so do normal kids. The difference is the psychopath enjoys doing it while the normal kid will grow a bit older and start to regret what they did.

[TimeTraveler]

"People under 18 years old who fit the criteria of a personality disorder are usually not diagnosed with such a disorder, although they may be diagnosed with a related disorder. In order to diagnose an individual under the age of 18 with a personality disorder, symptoms must be present for at least one year. Antisocial personality disorder, by definition, cannot be diagnosed at all in persons under 18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder


Thats because ALL children are born with brains which aren't fully capable of reason. Its one thing to say an adult has a brain which isn't fully developed and is a psychopath, because the adults brain has had 25 years to reach it's finished development state.

But any brain under 25 is still growing and is still a work in progress. Any brain under 18 probably wont even be close to where it will be when it's 25.
The point here is that you cannot diagnose a psychopath at 6-8 years old, it's impossible because the brain isn't finished. Sure they might be a psychopath at 6, but at 18 they might have developed/grown a conscience.

[Orleander]

He killed several of the animals with a rock as well. When does it become troublesome behaviour? Is it the age of the child or the animal he kills that makes the difference?

[MetaKron]

There is no evidence this child is a psychopath or sociopath. Just about everyone has done stupid stuff at 6 years old. Feeding the animals in a zoo is something everyone is tempted to do at that age, not because they are a psychopath who likes killing animals for fun, but because it's a zoo and they want to see how the crock hunts.

The point is, there are plenty of sane reasons why people would feed crocks and it's not the same as torturing animals. It's like if you had a pet snake and you feed it mice or rats, you aren't a psychopath for doing that. I would even say you aren't a psychopath if you set a mouse trap and the trap kills the mouse.

People have to be taught right from wrong, and children aren't going to instinctively know it's wrong to feed animals. Also according to psychiatry only adults can be diagnosed as true psychopaths. This is because as children, 100% of all children exhibit psychopath like behavior until they reach the age of reason where they grow a conscience and develop their frontal lobes.

So no, I don't think this kid is a psychopath. If this kid were 14 and still doing stuff like this then I'd be more concerned. And I don't think this kid needs therapy. Yes it's wrong to feed animals in a zoo, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that 6 year olds will do stuff like this.

A psychopath is an individual without a conscience. A psychopath might kill and torture animals as a child, but so do normal kids. The difference is the psychopath enjoys doing it while the normal kid will grow a bit older and start to regret what they did.

Seven year old children can hardly be expected to understand the context of a situation. In his mind most likely the boy was doing the same thing that anyone else did when feeding alligators. He's a little young to be expected to understand why a particular animal should not be fed to a carnivore. The principle involved is respect for someone else's property and feelings. There's a good chance that he hasn't had a lot of chance to learn this by example. A clue: Parents who ignore a child except to punish him when he messes up don't have a chance of teaching a child respect. After a while it's not even fear, he only learns contempt.