I *heart* tazzy. He speaks sense.
Those photos of Jon Venables....
He speaks sense.
That's what I thought too! Are you sure noone's hijacked your account for that last post?
no that was studying* genetics at uni
*vague recollections through a hung over daze of little laddery things and being disappointed that I could't clone an army of goth beauties to be my concubines
So Venables has re-offended, has Thomson kept his nose clean and head down? If he has, rehabilitation has had a 50% success rate in this particular case which may not be too bad when compared to overall figures (it's late and my Google ability has failed to find stats to back this up).
While I don't disagree with everything you said in your post at the end of the last page taz, I got to thinking about some stuff I'd been discussing (well, me asking and them explaining) with some clinical child psychologists I know. So I did a bit of reading and it seems that:
All experts in this field agree that genes are ruled by the environment, which can either mute or aggravate violent impulses. Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals.
is not true at all. It's nowhere near "all" experts in any way. For example, how do we explain the sociopathic toxic teenager who had excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings? Or the people who grew up to successful, well-rounded net contributors to society despite having the shittest of parents? As one article I read said,
For better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children. That is why they should not be so fast to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become.
Obviously, there are other factors that can influence a child and demonise him or her other than parents alone.
with some clinical child psychologists I know
It's nowhere near "all" experts in any way
sorry DD I was referring to experts in the field of behavioural genetics as that was the answer was specifically about.
For example, how do we explain the sociopathic toxic teenager who had excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings? Or the people who grew up to successful, well-rounded net contributors to society despite having the shittest of parents?
as per my previous posts, that's not genetically being a "bad un" but there are many, many other environmental or bio-chemical triggers that may and can cause behavioral change.
interestingly if you look at the statistics for self harming teenagers the majority of them are from the "excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings" categeory. They have tendency to aggressive impulsive behaviour but direct it inwards at themselves from behavioural conditioning.
What proportion of kids do fall into the "excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings" category? (Not a troll or prelude to a gotcha). How many kids are "normal"?
How many kids are "normal"?none...at all....
tazzymtb - Member
and yes, if someone was undergoing rehabilitation, was being monitored etc....I'd have no problems with them being in the community near my family. As with any predator..the one you see is not the problem, it's the ones coming in from your blind side that get you
I'm not sure I 'feel' your logic; All credit to you for being 'ok' about living next door to a known paedophile as you perceive the risk to be less than prsented by the as yet 'unknown' ones. I'd still rather not live next door to one hence I struggle with our strong desire to embrace rehabilitation for perpetrators of heinous offences as I've no wish to knowingly live next door to them hence to support rehabilitation for them is hypocritical.
Interesting debate though and always a school day on here....
Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals
True but the point remains as to which is the critical factor is unknown as it is a complicated interaction between environment and gentics that cuurently we dont understand, hence my argument that we cannot say which is which in any case
If it was all environment then an experience could trigger us all and we know this is not the case- we all respond differently to stressors be it in terms of aggression or likelyhood to be depressive.
interestingly if you look at the statistics for self harming teenagers the majority of them are from the "excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings" categeory. They have tendency to aggressive impulsive behaviour but direct it inwards at themselves from behavioural conditioning
Do all siblings raised with the same "behavioural conditioning" react like this or just some of them? It would be all if it was all environment as it is not all then it is not all blank slate. We can have the same environment and different outcomes. this would be impossible if it was all environment.
We are not borne either blank slates [ we have gentic dispositions] nor are we are unaffected by our environment.
The phrase "wrong un" was done on the phone [ ie brief] and may be more accurately described as greater gentic predisposition to behave in a certain way.
I think you are slightly overstating the case[ in places] to claim we are borne blank and it is all environment. Its not its both hence the discrepancy between siblings and also between different folk who experience the same trigger events.
I wonder if we should get back to the crux of the matter? I would ask, do people really think that posting possible pictures of Venables will actually do any good?
What is the intention here? Is it so that if you see him you can ostracise him, or hurt him, or even murder him? Is that what people want? Aside from opinions on crime, punishement and rehabilitiation, the problem is here is the one of extra judicial process, namely, what happens if you identify the wrong person?
Posting pictures bad . Wanting to kill 10 year old children who have committed a heinous crime wrong wanting to lock children up for the rest of their lives wrong . Wanting to hold the mature developed adult responsible for the acts of the immature undeveloped child for the rest of his life wrong . Pretending that if you lock away a child and make him a figure of national vilification that his later wrong doing is a sign of his inate evil plain stupid . All in my humble opinion of course .
I didnt say others wont murder ,and its cheaper than locking them up for 40 years
No it isn't - because you have to make utterly sure the person isn't innocent through a lengthy appeals process - which costs an utter fortune that is way in excess of locking them up for 40 years.
Then there's also a body of evidence that suggests the death penalty increases a country's murder rate.
Seriously....I can't believe that someone just advocated killing children who murdered other children.
Philosophically, morally and scientifically this is by FAR the most idiotic thing I have ever heard or even read on a forum. Your going to kill a child because killing children is immoral and the worse thing one can do.....yes.....brilliant. There's some sound **** philosophy.
Cue the first time I've had a thousand yard stare like this one from teh Internets. I think these two photo's sum up my feelings on KonaBunny's post.
Get me off this planet
This topic has been closed to new replies.