"GO CHENEY YOURSELF" DEMOCRATIC ANGER COUNTER STRATEGY

[belgareth]

I don't

worry about someone being able to convince society to restrict reproduction to prevent murderers from being born,

because heredity is a matter of odds, not certainty; environmental factors affect a condition's blossoming; and

rehab is possible if you catch it early.

Half in jest but...when has logical reasoning ever had any

meaning on how people vote?

When you have someone with severe negative behavior

that doesn't go along with maturity, I think you could typically point out some factor that was physical, if you

knew enough. That seems to be the flavor of psychological research. That doesn't absolve the person from their

share of responsibility.

If we better understood the brain abnormalities that plague leaders, we could learn to

better recognize when our leaders were suffering from symptoms. Public awareness would lead to better voting, and

better handling of counterproductive leadership. Leaders are at risk for certain things, just like all of us

are.

Interesting thought. The only part I know enough about to have an opinion is the responsibility. No,

it doesn't let them off the hook. The rest I'd like to see us learn more about.

[DrSmellThis]

The statement

is clear. You said "Complete freedom of movement should be put to death?"

I said: "Too dangerous or too sick to

be allowed freedom." While there is overlap I think the difference is clear. An animal with a broken leg has limited

freedom of movement but probably will recover. I had a cat for a number of years who was missing a leg. Not a big

problem, he was still enjoying life until a couple dogs came over my fence and killed him. A person without a leg is

fine in most respects. However, a dog with rabies would be put to sleep before the desease killed it. A dog known to

attack and kill other animals without provacation would be as well.

So the misunderstanding was over the

meaning of "complete". Fair enough. I used the word because people in prison have some freedoms that are not

complete, as do people with other debilitating illnesses.

Perhaps I should have stuck to your exact words and

asked, "So anyone too dangerous or sick to be allowed freedom should be unilaterally put to death, regardless of

their will to live?" But it's basically the same question, and it still seems to be a reasonable follow up, since

that is what you seemed to imply, as regards people who kill due to their sickness. Honestly, if you want to just

take it as a rhetorical question to facilitate thought, I'd be fine with it. I'd hate to get bogged down in that

question, and get into a bunch of Soylent Green "population management" type of scenarios (anyone remember that old

movie, with John Saxon?).

[DrSmellThis]

The only

part I know enough about to have an opinion is the responsibility. No, it doesn't let them off the hook. The rest

I'd like to see us learn more about.

Since you are being so gracious and cordial at the moment, I feel safe

to expand a little into some conceptual underpinnings that go beyond the concrete neurological issue.

Assuming

I'm right that murderers are mentally ill with brain abnormalities, the responsibility is divvied up like with any

sick person.

They have a responsibility to help themselves, to the extent of their degree of insight, and

ability to make such decisions/judgements. And we have a responsibility to help them all heal, given that we all

gain. They are irreduceably dependent on us to a certain degree (if they don't get help it ain't gonna get done).

To the extent they are irresponsible (notice the relativity and degrees throughout), people take natural, logical

consequences for their behavior, whatever those need to be in a healthy world.

In my mind its no different for

adults learning to live than for kids. The main natural consequence for someone who is dangerous is to make them

and everyone else safe. If you hurt others, another natural, logical, simple consequence is to not be able to be

with others until you learn to be safe. These consequences might have to be unpleasant for the dangerous person, as

a matter of course; but the unpleasantness is not the point. If you can't make yourself safe, or won't help

yourself, then others will have to help you be safe, until such as a time that we can trust that you'll be safe.



We are teaching safety from the get go that way, and sending a clear messsage to everyone in society of every

age. Imagine kids being able to learn a valuable, clear lesson from their societies' "penal" (meaning "punishment",

so I'd discard that word) systems. All people incarcerated for violent crimes would be required to participate in

research on treating/preventing violence, so they could help atone for hurting others. They also work to help

victims. If you hurt others, the natural consequence is to have to help fix the problem of people hurting people.



They are also involved in constant training on their sociopathic deficits, and receive positive consequences for

improvement. We get to test treatments this way.

Murderers in prison still have an opportunity to feel better

about themselves, gain more empathy for humans, expand their emotional capabilities, thereby giving them the hope

for true feelings of accomplishment, growth and self-esteem. That is a goal for all of us, after all. The message

they get is the same then as ever; the dignity they are accorded is the same then as ever; the growth opportunities

are prioritized the same then as ever. At no time are you "permitted" to abandon your own dignity. The system will

always hold you responsible for affirming your own and others' dignity,from birth to death. Killing someone won't

get you out of that "classroom", so you may as well start affirming your dignity now. No one is ever going to

enable your self hate for you -- that would be a cowardly, easy escape. You never will get to just call

youself a "bad guy" and have that be the end of it. Sorry, Charlie.

All of a sudden, we've got 1000 times the

existing research on violence, and it's ongoing. Prisons are now centers for studying violence and healing society

from violence -- they are what they should be, to have societal integrity. It all fits into one big idea.

It's

just applying the principles of parenting and healing arts to society. We want to heal ourselves from violence, and

to structure society to empower growth and learning, so as to let each person blossom as much as possible --

thereby making us all more fulfilled. These are the parenting and healing functions of society. That does not

magically change when someone becomes dangerous, especially given that they are ill.

People grow up knowing

society will always and forever hold them responsible for learning to be safe, in the same way. They can never

escape that responsibility. Achieving that safety will always be rewarded, and behaviors will always be consequenced

meaningfully. It is a consistent structure for the mind, which grows and develops from youth to fit that consistent

structure and message. Adult minds continue to be shaped in this way. No one will give up on you, so get used to

it.

That works 10,000 times better than any kind of deterrents, which are ineffective teachers.

That

constant, holistic, integrous message of safety and dignity, coupled with a healing/prevention approach, is the

most pure, and therefore powerful and effective-over-the-long-term method of healing society from violence. It's

about integrity.

The integrity of it makes a perfect example for others in the world to follow, and the clarity

of thought translates into the same approach in foreign relations. A nation that would be a leader strives to be

like a great parent and healing force in every sense of the word. We don't punish other nations. We support their

healing and growth to the extent of our role, and safety is a part of that. Most every nation will want to imitate

that and participate in that, causing democracy and peace to spread. That it will spread this way is a law of human

nature, not a fantasy.

When you can permeate the world with a pure energy of growth and healing like that; from

top to bottom, from birth to death, from extreme to extreme; then you will know civilization is going somewhere

wonderful. Reforming the "penal" system, or elimenating it as it has been (a punishment system), would be a great,

easy and powerful first step. Elimenating the brutal, self defeating practice of capital punishment is a wonderful

place to begin, but only a part of the picture. The system we have is not working.

[DrSmellThis]

Sorry, mntnjim, to go off the

topic of your thread. Please feel free to jump in and steer it back.

[Mtnjim]

Sorry, mntnjim,

to go off the topic of your thread. Please feel free to jump in and steer it back.

No worries, I find

your and Bel's "debates" to be "entertaining".

[belgareth]

Since you

are being so gracious and cordial at the moment, I feel safe to expand a little into some conceptual underpinnings

that go beyond the concrete neurological issue.

I'm always interested in learning and only voice an

opinion when I believe I am qualified too. When I disagree with you it is from as strong a conviction as you hold

for your beliefs. When I don't know something I try to find out and ask questions.

You and I see the world from

very different perspectives. Under my own beliefs there are few rules and almost nothing is disallowed. Society has

neither the right nor the obligation to protect us from our own folly nor to use any form of force to require you

help others. So long as you do not harm another your actions are your own to choose.

I do believe that the

majority of the world's woes are a product of our social training. Hate, greed, conspicuous consumption, class

stratification, violent crime, apathy, deceite, callousness are all products of how we are taught from birth. Thus,

the best model is to teach parents to teach children to live in a harmoneous manner within the world. Not an easy

goal but a needed one. In my utopian fantasy there is no coercen, only the opportunity to be what you choose to be

and the consequences for your actions.

You might argue that my world would leave the sick and infirm with

nothing. That isn't true. Remember back to a description I gave where those who would not voluntarily contribute to

society were given the basics of life? It still stands but anything beyond the basics as previously defined would be

the problem of the individual. The basics include food, shelter, clothing, education and competent medical care.

Those who wished to make an effort would have every opportunity to achieve within their limitations but high

achievers would not be penalized for being successful.

All this and much more is perfectly reasonable and

viable once you remove the unreasonable burden of excess government from society's back. Government has no business

telling you that you cannot do to your body what you wish, it has no right to create vast armies that are then used

to invade or control other countries and it has no business regulating private matters such as marraige or family

relations. The only functions of a centralized government are to provide for the weak, protect national bounderies

(and this is an open subject as I have issues with nationalism), and provide for an education for each and every

person. You can split hairs and pick at this but most if not all needs are covered under those basic requirements.

Most people seem to forget a basic of government. We are the country, the government is part of the country and

belongs to the people. We do not work for the government, the government and all it's employees work for us. Their

only function should be to serve our needs.

On first reading of what you say above I like a lot of it and

believe that a better understanding of the science of the brain could benefit mankind tremendously. However, I will

not agree that imprisonment for life is less than horrible cruelty no matter how it is described. And because I view

the human life as no different from any other animal I do not agree with the prohibition with taking human life as a

consequence of a person's actions. Human life is no more or less sacred than that of any other creature.

On a

purely emotional level the idea of using prisoners for research is disturbing. Are you implying involuntary

research?

MtnJim:
I apologize too and am glad we at least can manage to entertain you.

[Mtnjim]

MtnJim:
I

apologize too and am glad we at least can manage to entertain you.

It's intresting, 'cause I tend to

agree with both your points of view, just on different things!

[oscar]

Going back to the original

topic...........

I see the Republicans' accusing the Democrats for being "angry" as rather like the Nazis'

condemning the prisoners at Auschwitz for being "needy".

Bush has said that he won't let a bunch of politicians

in Washington dictate his strategy in Iraq.

Every tax paying American whose representatives' inputs are being

bypassed and ignored is being cheated, and is thus fully entitled to be angry.

Oscar