10 y/o stabbed while fighting off pedophile aids-infested perp in a Wendy's restroom [Archive]

Wiggity

07-07-12, 18:53

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1106439.1341252606!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg

A registered sex offender is behind bars after alleged attempting to sexually assault a 10-year-old boy in a Wendy’s restroom and stabbing the child when he fought back.

Patrons banded together to hold Adam Lee Brown, after he released the child, in the locked bathroom at the fast food restaurant in Portland, Ore., until police arrived, KGW-TV reports.

The 49-year-old reportedly stood outside the door of the bathroom Sunday and forced the unidentified child inside before locking the door and trying to sexually abuse him.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1106440

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/dexter-comic-con.jpg

ALCOAR

07-07-12, 19:05

Marsellus will say it for both of us.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOn1dFmFds)

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/pulp_fiction3870-1.jpg

Failure2Stop

07-07-12, 19:10

Edited thread title.

Heavy Metal

07-07-12, 19:22

The world would be a better place with Chester 6 feet under it.

Moose-Knuckle

07-07-12, 19:34

That's one for the wood chipper for sure.

Good on the lad for fighting back and refusing to be a victim.

Failure2Stop

07-07-12, 19:45

Just found a new face target.

lethal dose

07-07-12, 19:58

Here's to hoping someone rips Chester's ding dong off and feeds it to him while in lockup.

munch520

07-07-12, 20:17

Just found a new face target.

Definitely

Cagemonkey

07-07-12, 20:23

Feed him to the pigs.

J-Dub

07-07-12, 20:59

What a p.o.s. Looks like a 100% predator/shithead.

Endur

07-07-12, 21:40

I hope they break a broom stick off in his a** in prison.. every month.

Vash1023

07-07-12, 21:48

amazing surprised that the guy who looks like a scumbag dirtball turned out to be one....... or not

SeriousStudent

07-07-12, 23:49

Prayers sent for the young boy and his family. They will need strength and courage in the days ahead.

There is not enough coal for all the furnaces in Hell, to accomplish what should happen to that evil thing. The first words that come to my mind are "Speed reload."

SteyrAUG

07-08-12, 00:42

So I have a question...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57465598-504083/adam-lee-brown-hiv-positive-sex-offender-assaulted-boy-10-at-wendys-bathroom-portland-police-say/

"Adam Lee Brown was on parole after trying to infect children with HIV nearly 20 years prior to the alleged weekend"

Why was this POS who already raped nine kids with the intent to give them AIDS ever let out of jail?

Magic_Salad0892

07-08-12, 00:57

Why was this POS who already raped nine kids with the intent to give them AIDS ever let out of jail?

He wasn't trying to give them AIDS.

He was trying to give them HIV.

RogerinTPA

07-08-12, 02:29

M4Fundi

07-08-12, 04:44

VooDoo6Actual

07-08-12, 09:39

Future Obamacare recipient, supporter & voter. Circling the drain of gravity & inevitability.

CarlosDJackal

07-08-12, 10:55

Kudos to the people who got involved. Too bad they didn't accidentally suffocate this pos in the process of detaining him for the cops. The fact that this piece of amphibian shit was willingg to attempt this in a public location tells me that he has no chance of rehabilitation nor does he fear anything the courts can do to him.

My prayers to the victim and his family.

Wiggity

07-08-12, 11:02

He wasn't trying to give them AIDS.

He was trying to give them HIV.

:agree:

Dirk Williams

07-08-12, 11:02

Just another fine example of a Parole Boards lack of concern for the public.

The Parole Board members who released this piece of shit have total immunity.

We hold our street cops accountable for their actions and in-actions.

When are we going to start holding DA's Judges and Parole Board members accoutable for their liberal stance and sentence's.

That PeckerWood needs a cap to the forehead, Sadly this butt plug will see day light again if tried in Oregon.

Dirk

glocktogo

07-08-12, 15:00

I think the patrons should've stood on him rather than hold him. By that I mean they all should've stood on his chest, like they were trying to see how many people would fit in a phone booth. :mad:

FromMyColdDeadHand

07-08-12, 15:15

I'm guessing the kid was by himself or with his mom. I'd have cut off his nuts, while wearing food service gloves, with one of those plastic sporks.

AIDS-HIV aside, were these people institutionalized and medicated back 40 years ago- or just lost on the way to jail?

Magic_Salad0892

07-08-12, 15:37

I wonder if you guys realize my post was sarcasm.

Honu

07-08-12, 17:10

Would have been good to have went OOOOPPPPSSS and dumped a bucket of deep fry oil all over his face from the kitchen or said we had to wrestle him and his face got shoved into the fryer :)

Molesters should have a giant squid jig shoved up there rear then hung from it till they die !

Failure2Stop

07-08-12, 17:28

Why is it that when pedophiles are caught, there is no end to the talk of what heinous things people want to do to their bottoms?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Honu

07-08-12, 17:32

Why is it that when pedophiles are caught, there is no end to the talk of what heinous things people want to do to their bottoms?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I also said shove his face in the fryer :)

I think its the old eye for a eye thing for honest answer why :)

a0cake

07-08-12, 18:05

People like this absolutely need to be segregated from society (in most cases for the remainder of their lives) for the safety and well-being of the population at large.

But the strident and vitriolic calls for revenge in the form of physical torture (usually by way of forced anal penetration) are, in their own ways, sick and twisted themselves. Attempting to balance out the perpetrator's cruelty with another heinous act of violence accomplishes nothing. Punishment is not for its own sake. For punishment to be just, it must have positive consequences outside of itself. Ass-raping pedophiles accomplishes nothing.

"An eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" are equally nonsensical systems of moral accountability. We shouldn't inflict painful punishment for pain's own sake, nor should we let harmful activity go unchallenged.

For a full explanation of why I think this way, take the time to watch this video in its entirety, which delves into the concepts of free will vs. determinism. It's just a primer, but I think you'll see that the moral / judicial framework that logically follows from the argument is a better way forward. If you've not dealt with these concepts before, you owe it to yourself to watch and continue to contemplate on it / read about it. It's like a light-bulb coming on that will fundamentally change how you consider the idea of justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

Spiffums

07-08-12, 18:52

SteyrAUG

07-08-12, 19:33

He wasn't trying to give them AIDS.

He was trying to give them HIV.

More or less the same thing. He wasn't giving them Christmas cookies, it was a fatal disease transmitted via rape.

SteyrAUG

07-08-12, 19:35

I wonder if you guys realize my post was sarcasm.

Opps sorry. Looks like at least one guy agreed with you though.

:sarcastic:

SteyrAUG

07-08-12, 19:47

Why is it that when pedophiles are caught, there is no end to the talk of what heinous things people want to do to their bottoms?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I didn't. But I think it results from people wanting to inflict a similar painful trauma on the perpetrator that they did or intended to inflict on the childhood victim.

People like this absolutely need to be segregated from society (in most cases for the remainder of their lives) for the safety and well-being of the population at large.

But the strident and vitriolic calls for revenge in the form of physical torture (usually by way of forced anal penetration) are, in their own ways, sick and twisted themselves. Attempting to balance out the perpetrator's cruelty with another heinous act of violence accomplishes nothing. Punishment is not for its own sake. For punishment to be just, it must have positive consequences outside of itself. Ass-raping pedophiles accomplishes nothing.

"An eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" are equally nonsensical systems of moral accountability. We shouldn't inflict painful punishment for pain's own sake, nor should we let harmful activity go unchallenged.

For a full explanation of why I think this way, take the time to watch this video in its entirety, which delves into the concepts of free will vs. determinism. It's just a primer, but I think you'll see that the moral / judicial framework that logically follows from the argument is a better way forward. If you've not dealt with these concepts before, you owe it to yourself to watch and continue to contemplate on it / read about it. It's like a light-bulb coming on that will fundamentally change how you consider the idea of justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

I would accept an expedient "on your way" execution but I disagree with your premise that there is something wrong with people who express these desires.

To rape a child is simply so abhorrent to the average persons sense of right and wrong, along with crimes dissecting a child alive, cannibalism of a murdered child or similar acts that they simply seek to inflict similar horrors on the perpetrator so that they might understand first hand the pain they have caused.

I'm pretty civilized but if you harmed my wife I could probably do some pretty ****ed up things to that person. I think most sane and sensible people who had their child tortured and murdered would have no problem putting the responsible party through the wood chipper.

This is one of the reasons you typically leave peoples kids alone. Also some people have a certain mindset that requires they correct grave injustices. If I had a child who was tortured and murdered no amount of jail time would ever make things right with me. My life would forever be destroyed knowing the monster still lives, breathes and eats. No amount of time spent on the couch could ever make me ok with such a crime. I think only knowing the monster was dead, preferably by my hand, would allow me to go on as a sane person.

It wouldn't bring my loved one back, it wouldn't prevent other criminals from doing the same to other kids, but at least it would give me the piece of mind knowing I did something about it. It is an insane world where such notions are considered less than sane and no longer understood.

Failure2Stop

07-08-12, 19:51

I'm not passing judgement on anyone about emotions they don't really know how to express, I just think that it's an interesting view into the human condition.

a0cake

07-08-12, 19:58

I would accept an expedient "on your way" execution but I disagree with your premise that there is something wrong with people who express these desires.

To rape a child is simply so abhorrent to the average persons sense of right and wrong, along with crimes dissecting a child alive, cannibalism of a murdered child or similar acts that they simply seek to inflict similar horrors on the perpetrator so that they might understand first hand the pain they have caused.

I'm pretty civilized but if you harmed my wife I could probably do some pretty ****ed up things to that person. I think most sane and sensible people who had their child tortured and murdered would have no problem putting the responsible party through the wood chipper.

This is one of the reasons you typically leave peoples kids alone. Also some people have a certain mindset that requires they correct grave injustices. If I had a child who was tortured and murdered no amount of jail time would ever make things right with me. My life would forever be destroyed knowing the monster still lives, breathes and eats. No amount of time spent on the couch could ever make me ok with such a crime. I think only knowing the monster was dead, preferably by my hand, would allow me to go on as a sane person.

It wouldn't bring my loved one back, it wouldn't prevent other criminals from doing the same to other kids, but at least it would give me the piece of mind knowing I did something about it. It is an insane world where such notions are considered less than sane and no longer understood.

I fully understand this reaction on a visceral and emotional level. However, as a believer in determinism (there's no such thing as free will), I just can't get on board.

I'm not talking down on anyone by any means, but I probably shouldn't have expected others to accept what I said above without having a full understanding of this worldview. If you watch the video I posted (not just skim through it), you'll have a somewhat better sense of where I'm coming from, and I think you'll at least find my position more reasonable.

VLODPG

07-08-12, 20:42

Lock them away in a US equivalent of Black Dolphin http://natgeotv.com/asia/inside-russias-toughest-prisons/videos/black-dolphin-prison

glocktogo

07-08-12, 22:31

I fully understand this reaction on a visceral and emotional level. However, as a believer in determinism (there's no such thing as free will), I just can't get on board.

I'm not talking down on anyone by any means, but I probably shouldn't have expected others to accept what I said above without having a full understanding of this worldview. If you watch the video I posted (not just skim through it), you'll have a somewhat better sense of where I'm coming from, and I think you'll at least find my position more reasonable.

I think there are several things at play here. One's individual life experiences play a large role in how one views this subject. I think we can all agree that Chester the Molester here is an exceedingly poor use of oxygen. Most of us would reserve an extra toasty room in hell for those that destroy the young so completely, on both physical and psychological levels.

Some people would be able to pray for this man and offer forgiveness. Most would not. Many would wish unspeakable horrors upon him A rare few would actually be willing and able to perform those horrors. A few, under the right circumstances, would simply kill him and be done with it. No vitriol, no fanfare, just a quick bullet to the brain and walk away.

People in professions dealing with the rubbish of humanity often use gallows humor or crass and unappealing thoughts as defense mechanisms. Otherwise, these fiends will erode their humanity like acid. It's too horrific to contemplate that this could quite easily be you in another life. That some mitochondrial DNA or life experience is all that separates you from this guy isn't an appealing thought.

Could you rape a 10 year old and pass a life threatening, wasting disease to him? How does that fit in with your philosophy of determinism? I for one cannot fathom it from my place in the world. Therefore, I have to pass my condemnation onto him for doing it. He's an abomination that must be eradicated at nearly any cost. But, does his eradication spell an end to his particular brand of evil?

Some would say a horrific end for him would be a warning to others who might have similar urges. I can't say whether this would be an effective deterrent or not. Some urges transcend the survival urge. But can you say it would encourage them to follow in Chester's footsteps? Hardly. Letting fiends like Chester here know how we view them is a good thing. Showing them love and compassion certainly isn't going to improve their behavior. Whether their compulsion is a matter of misfiring neurons, a brain tumor, a chemical imbalance or possession by a malevolent spirit is really irrelevant. Keeping them from raping a child is the ONLY important matter.

I think suicide is bad. I think people should be encouraged to avoid it at all costs. Except for pedophiles. This is my one exemption. They should get a free pass. If you're so ****ed in the head that you cannot keep yourself from molesting a child, you should do the world a favor and suck start a pistol. Nothing you're capable of accomplishing in this life will EVER outweigh what you'll do to that child. Absolutely nothing. If you can't bring yourself to do it before you destroy that life, I hope someone does it for you, fanfare or not.

My determinism requires that I spread this message. How about yours?

Endur

07-08-12, 22:42

Law Abiding Citizen.. need I say more?

a0cake

07-08-12, 23:06

My determinism requires that I spread this message. How about yours?

Man, I'm really not sure what to do with all that. Not trying to piss you off, it's just that what you said is only tangentially related to what seems like an incomplete understanding of determinism. I really don't want to get into it a long debate about this complicated subject that is sure to cause a lot of contention, especially when it's so widely misunderstood. I've been studying it for years and I'm still unclear on some of it, so this is understandable.

So, suffice it to say that yes, this guy is a POS and needs to be permanently removed from an environment where he can ever do something like this again. As for me, it is a waste of my time and energy to get angry and emotionally frenzied over a clump of molecules that was determined to act as it did. Seems pointless to blame a clump of matter that had no say in how it was composed, no say in the urges it had, and no say in its ability to either control or give in to those urges. Lock it up until it dies naturally or kill it if the threat of keeping it alive is too great. Cause it no unnecessary pain in the mean time - why torture something for making choices it was determined to make? Torturing it can bring nothing good about, especially for the torturer, plus exacting pain on a creature for doing what it had no choice but to do is clearly wrong. Forget the emotion, be rational: lock it up and leave it alone or kill it humanely if it's too great a threat to be left alive. I'm of the lock it up persuasion in all cases where that's possible, but I'll leave the alternative to your good judgement.

HES

07-08-12, 23:20

Also some people have a certain mindset that requires they correct grave injustices.

I think this, as well as other points you touched on, are the driving forces behind such statements. Normally our society is indeed fairly civilized enough that we can restrain our desires for vengence. However there are exceptions. It's been my experience over the years that the biggest exception, when the most vile and nasty calls for retribution and revenge come forth, is when a crime of violence against a child has been perpetrated.

Our society reserves a special view on children that we don't afford others except for possibly the elderly and infirmed. Children are viewed as defenseless, harmless, innocent beings who are just beginning to have a life. They all basically start out with a bright future and we all want them have a shot at success and happiness. So when we as a society see a monster inflict such damage as this one did we recoil. A nearly universal taboo has been broken and we seek to correct it. In one way we feel that it is only fair to visit the same pain and anguish on the monster that he inflicted on the innocent. This is someone after all who chose to cross a well defined and unbreakable line and they must pay for it and dearly. Another cause behind these calls for punishment beyond what we would call for it the victim were an adult is a desire to send a message to other similar and potential individuals. Ya know what.....

I don't have a problem with that. Normally I am a fair and level headed guy who is not prone to giving into hyperbole or mob mentality. However when it is a child all bets are off in my world. I do want that sonofabitch to pay dearly for what he has done. I want him to suffer unimaginable horrors similar to the ones he has inflicted on that child. Will it help the child bringing him or her comfort knowing that others took action? Will it cause the child guilt knowing that another human being had to suffer a similar fate that they did? I don't know. I hope for the former and not for the latter. I do know that I cannot follow the normal rules when it is a child.

glocktogo

07-08-12, 23:29

Man, I'm really not sure what to do with all that. Not trying to piss you off, it's just that what you said is only tangentially related to what seems like an incomplete understanding of determinism. I really don't want to get into it a long debate about this complicated subject that is sure to cause a lot of contention, especially when it's so widely misunderstood. I've been studying it for years and I'm still unclear on some of it, so this is understandable.

So, suffice it to say that yes, this guy is a POS and needs to be permanently removed from an environment where he can ever do something like this again. As for me, it is a waste of my time and energy to get angry and emotionally frenzied over a clump of molecules that was determined to act as it did. Seems pointless to blame a clump of matter that had no say in how it was composed, no say in the urges it had, and no say in its ability to either control or give in to those urges. Lock it up until it dies naturally or kill it if the threat of keeping it alive is too great. Cause it no unnecessary pain in the mean time - why torture something for making choices it was determined to make? Torturing it can bring nothing good about, especially for the torturer, plus exacting pain on a creature for doing what it had no choice but to do is clearly wrong. Forget the emotion, be rational: lock it up and leave it alone or kill it humanely if it's too great a threat to be left alive. I'm of the lock it up persuasion in all cases where that's possible, but I'll leave the alternative to your good judgement.

No offense taken and perhaps I didn't understand the video (tired from a long weekend). So, no offense intended when I ask what keeps us all from killing whomever we feel like, if they're just the part I bolded above? Is it determinism? Why should we show love and compassion, because they're just urges we can't control?

FWIW, I didn't align myself with any of the remedies I mentioned. If you must know, I'm of the "put a bullet in them and walk away" category. Why leave your own humanity behind by acting the way they do? If you think about it in a slightly skewed way, locking them up forever with no way to express the urges that were so overwhelming to them is a form of emotional torture. :confused:

Sensei

07-08-12, 23:39

Seems pointless to blame a clump of matter that had no say in how it was composed, no say in the urges it had, and no say in its ability to either control or give in to those urges.

I've isolated the portion of your post that I think will run afoul with most members on this forum and a large section of the general public. The rest of your post was more "mainstream."

I'm not trying to debate you on this topic. Instead, I'm trying to let you know in case you ever get that misunderstood feeling right after you said something that you think is profound in front of a crowd.

Wiggity

07-09-12, 00:15

Seems pointless to blame a clump of matter that had no say in how it was composed, no say in the urges it had, and no say in its ability to either control or give in to those urges.

How can you possibily make these judgements and know any of this to be true?

Especially when you have never even seen this particular clump of molecules before this thread.

Massive assumptions, you're making them.

a0cake

07-09-12, 00:26

How can you possibily make these judgements and know any of this to be true?

Especially when you have never even seen this particular clump of molecules before this thread.

Massive assumptions, you're making them.

Fuuuuck, I should not have brought this up here.

Guys, I understand the objections and concerns. And I really don't want to seem like I'm ducking the questions, but as I said before I don't want to get into a long debate about this here.

I really shouldn't have brought it up in the first place - a temporary lapse in judgement in forgetting that I wasn't talking to a group who either agreed with the premise or at least fully understood the complicated debate from both sides. So naturally it's going to lead to contention when it's not even understood. My mistake.

There's no easy way to reasonably explain my position from behind a keyboard. It's complicated, long, and would require pages of premises and conclusions. No way I'm doing that. Again, shouldn't have brought it up here knowing that I'm not about to get into it in depth.

Wiggity, I'm not making any assumptions, and no offense, but you truly do not know what's going on here. This is probably the single most contentious issue among philosophers and neuroscientists right now, and I've been following it closely. It's a little annoying to get essentially called a dumbass by someone who's obviously not understood what I'm getting at. And you obviously didn't watch the video (not unreasonable, since it's long). So again, that's my fault for bringing it up on this forum.

But anyway, if someone really really wants me to respond to the questions and concerns, I will. If not, all I'll do is humbly suggest that you read "Free Will" by Sam Harris (it's short), and some of Daniel Dennett's books on determinism also.

I'm sure more and more people will dogpile on this, and that's fine. After all, I did start something I have no intention of finishing.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 00:44

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 00:56

As for me, it is a waste of my time and energy to get angry and emotionally frenzied over a clump of molecules that was determined to act as it did. Seems pointless to blame a clump of matter that had no say in how it was composed, no say in the urges it had, and no say in its ability to either control or give in to those urges. Lock it up until it dies naturally or kill it if the threat of keeping it alive is too great. Cause it no unnecessary pain in the mean time - why torture something for making choices it was determined to make? Torturing it can bring nothing good about, especially for the torturer, plus exacting pain on a creature for doing what it had no choice but to do is clearly wrong. Forget the emotion, be rational: lock it up and leave it alone or kill it humanely if it's too great a threat to be left alive. I'm of the lock it up persuasion in all cases where that's possible, but I'll leave the alternative to your good judgement.

If that is the case then that clump of molecules is actually innocent and we are dealing with the true nature of the frog and scorpion. So why lock up anyone at all? Why do anything to correct anyone if all is pre ordained via determinism? Wouldn't any action for any reason be futile and against the nature of determinism? And while we are at it, wouldn't it also be determinism to torture these people beyond any conceivable restraint? Wouldn't it be going against determinism to attempt to stop those actions because they are "what was going to happen no matter what" just like the original crimes?

As noted before it is a notion that I simply cannot accept for many reasons, most significantly I don't think our existence is ordered and we are almost meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

However I understand genetic predisposition (getting back to the frog and the scorpion) and I understand humans are nothing more than the most clever animal on this planet and some have a stronger predatory nature and other instincts that are at odds with modern civilization and / or completely reprehensible to our values.

When I see a rattlesnake out in nature I kill it. I don't kill it because I hate it, I don't kill it because it necessarily threatened me or because it did anything wrong. I kill it because I don't want to leave the threat for the next person who might happen along. I don't go looking for rattlesnakes deliberately, but if I happen across one I kill it. I'd hate to read about some poor kid who wasn't paying attention who got bit by a rattlesnake that I left alone because it didn't bother me.

Along those lines somebody should have killed this ****er 20 years ago.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 00:58

How can you possibily make these judgements and know any of this to be true?

Especially when you have never even seen this particular clump of molecules before this thread.

Massive assumptions, you're making them.

It's his personal belief system. And if true, it is true in every case.

I don't happen to believe it's true, but I don't buy a lot of stuff other people believe.

Honu

07-09-12, 01:01

I'm not passing judgement on anyone about emotions they don't really know how to express, I just think that it's an interesting view into the human condition.

it is :)

I know I posted its a eye for a eye kinda thing ? if someone used a knife on someone close I might rather return the favor than shoot them !
curious if you have a take on why some prefer the same back to people ?

Moose-Knuckle

07-09-12, 03:42

When are we going to start holding DA's Judges and Parole Board members accoutable for their liberal stance and sentence's.

Those who have are either rotting away in Supermax or have been executed while oxygen thieves such as this are free to brutalize at will.

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 08:19

Marsellus will say it for both of us.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOn1dFmFds)

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/pulp_fiction3870-1.jpg

http://www.zog.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/OrsonWellesClap.gif

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 08:20

He wasn't trying to give them AIDS.

He was trying to give them HIV.

ETA - sorry, didn't read the whole thread :-P

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 08:25

I didn't. But I think it results from people wanting to inflict a similar painful trauma on the perpetrator that they did or intended to inflict on the childhood victim.

I would accept an expedient "on your way" execution but I disagree with your premise that there is something wrong with people who express these desires.

To rape a child is simply so abhorrent to the average persons sense of right and wrong, along with crimes dissecting a child alive, cannibalism of a murdered child or similar acts that they simply seek to inflict similar horrors on the perpetrator so that they might understand first hand the pain they have caused.

I'm pretty civilized but if you harmed my wife I could probably do some pretty ****ed up things to that person. I think most sane and sensible people who had their child tortured and murdered would have no problem putting the responsible party through the wood chipper.

This is one of the reasons you typically leave peoples kids alone. Also some people have a certain mindset that requires they correct grave injustices. If I had a child who was tortured and murdered no amount of jail time would ever make things right with me. My life would forever be destroyed knowing the monster still lives, breathes and eats. No amount of time spent on the couch could ever make me ok with such a crime. I think only knowing the monster was dead, preferably by my hand, would allow me to go on as a sane person.

It wouldn't bring my loved one back, it wouldn't prevent other criminals from doing the same to other kids, but at least it would give me the piece of mind knowing I did something about it. It is an insane world where such notions are considered less than sane and no longer understood.

This. Call me sick, or whatever... Don't really care. And I don't even have kids, want them, or actually even like them much - but I agree 100% with SA.

montanadave

07-09-12, 08:29

This. Call me sick, or whatever... Don't really care. And I don't even have kids, want them, or actually even like them much - but I agree 100% with SA.

Can't say as I disagree either.

Shit, I'd probably lose it if somebody ****ed with one of my dogs.

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 08:30

Many would wish unspeakable horrors upon him A rare few would actually be willing and able to perform those horrors.

http://www.tubeclockdb.com/media/kunena/attachments/3091/horshack.jpg

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 08:35

Fuuuuck, I should not have brought this up here.

Guys, I understand the objections and concerns. And I really don't want to seem like I'm ducking the questions, but as I said before I don't want to get into a long debate about this here.

I really shouldn't have brought it up in the first place - a temporary lapse in judgement in forgetting that I wasn't talking to a group who either agreed with the premise or at least fully understood the complicated debate from both sides. So naturally it's going to lead to contention when it's not even understood. My mistake.

There's no easy way to reasonably explain my position from behind a keyboard. It's complicated, long, and would require pages of premises and conclusions. No way I'm doing that. Again, shouldn't have brought it up here knowing that I'm not about to get into it in depth.

Wiggity, I'm not making any assumptions, and no offense, but you truly do not know what's going on here. This is probably the single most contentious issue among philosophers and neuroscientists right now, and I've been following it closely. It's a little annoying to get essentially called a dumbass by someone who's obviously not understood what I'm getting at. And you obviously didn't watch the video (not unreasonable, since it's long). So again, that's my fault for bringing it up on this forum.

But anyway, if someone really really wants me to respond to the questions and concerns, I will. If not, all I'll do is humbly suggest that you read "Free Will" by Sam Harris (it's short), and some of Daniel Dennett's books on determinism also.

I'm sure more and more people will dogpile on this, and that's fine. After all, I did start something I have no intention of finishing.

I understand determinism as well as someone who doesn't subscribe to it can. I assume you consider yourself a "Hard Determinist" then?

Redmanfms

07-09-12, 08:39

I've isolated the portion of your post that I think will run afoul with most members on this forum and a large section of the general public. The rest of your post was more "mainstream."

I'm not trying to debate you on this topic. Instead, I'm trying to let you know in case you ever get that misunderstood feeling right after you said something that you think is profound in front of a crowd.

:sarcastic:

I thought the same thing when I saw the determinism post.

jklaughrey

07-09-12, 08:49

Putting 2 in this animal causes me no more stress than ordering a coffee and deciding if I want it black or with cream. Yes I would have zero issues with taking out this human trash. Thanks to my Grandfather he taught me long ago that some things deserve to live and some don't. My moral compass may be askew but I know that sometimes in order to right a wrong we need to be as we are in nature...ruthless!

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

Moltke

07-09-12, 08:58

Think of all the time, money and effort spent on this scumbag. Just the court costs, jail time, and rehabilitation, accounts for a lot and now he's at it again. Enough is enough, just shoot him in the head and throw him in a shallow grave on the outskirts of nowhere, and be done with it. If someone had done just that 20 years ago, this 10 y/o kid wouldn't have been molested or stabbed.

3 AE

07-09-12, 09:51

I'm pretty sure that most of us would end up beating the crap out of each other trying to be the first in line if they were to choose this criminal's executioner, but it's not done that way. The sad fact of the matter is that if anyone or anybody were to kill or maim this lowlife, they would end up doing a lot more time than him. Don't count on a Portland jury of your peers to exonerate you. It won't happen. I'm just glad he was caught. It will be most interesting to see what his sentence will be this time around.

The_War_Wagon

07-09-12, 09:57

glocktogo

07-09-12, 10:44

:mad:
I'm pretty sure that most of us would end up beating the crap out of each other trying to be the first in line if they were to choose this criminal's executioner, but it's not done that way. The sad fact of the matter is that if anyone or anybody were to kill or maim this lowlife, they would end up doing a lot more time than him. Don't count on a Portland jury of your peers to exonerate you. It won't happen. I'm just glad he was caught. It will be most interesting to see what his sentence will be this time around.

If the stabbed 10 y.o. were my child, I know what I'd say in court during sentencing as a victim impact statement. knowing the liberal, bleeding heart nature of the area residents, I'd look them straight in the eye and I'd tell them that his fate is in their hands. I'd tell them that they can sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, or they would be signing his death warrant. Because I would without a moment's hesitation, kill him the day he got out. He'd have to travel in an armored vehicle and never set foot outside to prevent it. If the libtards wanted to keep him alive for some twisted reason, they'd have to keep him in prison forever. I would otherwise do their jobs for them and make sure he never harmed another child for the rest of his very brief post-prison life. :mad:

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 10:52

:mad:

If the stabbed 10 y.o. were my child, I know what I'd say in court during sentencing as a victim impact statement. knowing the liberal, bleeding heart nature of the area residents, I'd look them straight in the eye and I'd tell them that his fate is in their hands. I'd tell them that they can sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, or they would be signing his death warrant. Because I would without a moment's hesitation, kill him the day he got out. He'd have to travel in an armored vehicle and never set foot outside to prevent it. If the libtards wanted to keep him alive for some twisted reason, they'd have to keep him in prison forever. I would otherwise do their jobs for them and make sure he never harmed another child for the rest of his very brief post-prison life. :mad:

And once again:

http://www.zog.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/OrsonWellesClap.gif

chadbag

07-09-12, 11:23

I did not watch the video on determinism (lack of time at the moment). However, I did go read a few pages devoted to trying to explain it.

I disagree with it, though I think certain concepts presented do have their place.

However, I would think that a believer in determinism would be the first in line to say that this POS perpetrator would need to be eliminated. For whatever reason, determinism or "free will"*, this person has proven to be a danger to society, a "cancer" so to speak, and for the good of the society, the cancer must be removed. The conditions that "determined" that he did such a thing, also "determined" that he be removed from society. (So that such conditions would not result in more such behavior). In this view, "why" he did it is not important to the result. The result is that that part of the system was giving incorrect results, from a societal viewpoint, and needs to self-correct by purging the "offending" piece from itself.

--

* the reason I put "free will" in quotes is that while I believe in free will, it is not absolute. It only functions within whatever constraints are physically applied to the environment that a person is making a choice in. If I decide to drive 100mph weaving in and out of traffic, when my car starts to slide into the guard rail, I cannot "choose" at that moment to stop the behavior and save myself from smashing into the guardrail. Additionally, if I decide to drink too much (theoretically since I am a tea-totaller), I may lose the ability to make future choices while drunk, and that may include the choice to drink more later as I may be suffering the effects of alcohol dependence that, in an extreme cases, may preclude my ability to choose anything including stopping drinking. So we have "free will", but choices may lead to consequences which limit our ability to exercise "free will", due to previous choices.

kaiservontexas

07-09-12, 11:57

I say hang him. I would lose no sleep over it.

Failure2Stop

07-09-12, 12:16

I am probably going to regret this, but I am going to jump into a GD thread. Here goes.

I fully believe in the pruning of the tree of society. There are aspects of the whole that many disagree on, of which violent resonse has no place. There are also aspects of society that I think we can all agree simply needs to be removed. Murderers, violent rapists, torturers, and active pedophiles should simply be removed from society. Personally, I find the concept of paying taxes to keep them alive abhorrent, but as long as the end-state is achieved, if it makes everyone else ok with the removal of these people from interaction with any segment of society, I can bear it.

I hold life to be extremely precious, I would give my life to protect those I care about, and I will mercilessly take the lives of those that would threaten me and mine by whatever means available. I believe in eliminating threats, and frankly, the greatest threat to humans are other humans.

I also believe in vengance. If you visit harm on someone undeserving of harm, expect at least an equal response to be visited upon you. It's not "an eye for an eye", that's the lower end of the bargain. It is not designed to scare off those that would commit a similar crime, it is purely tailored to the individual action and to exact the needed equal and opposite reaction, conflict resolution, whatever.

I despise torture. Those that commit those acts can never be reclaimed.
(Let me be clear here, physical discomfort and permanent physical/mental damage are different things. There are interrogation techniques that some woud classify as "torture" that are not, and do not carry the same stigma)
However, I do not feel that one must become a torturer to punish a torturer.

A neat, clinical, simple execution, immediately upon sentencing is my personal vote. Whatever the cause that led to the twisting and corruption of the individual, it simply cannot be permitted to continue to pose a threat to the innocent.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 12:41

I despise torture. Those that commit those acts can never be reclaimed.
(Let me be clear here, physical discomfort and permanent physical/mental damage are different things. There are interrogation techniques that some woud classify as "torture" that are not, and do not carry the same stigma)
However, I do not feel that one must become a torturer to punish a torturer.

Depends how close you are to the event. If you tortured my family I think venting my pain, anger and the destruction of "who I used to be" is the only thing that will prevent me from being completely destroyed myself. So in a very real sense, it can be an act of self preservation.

In a way it is a bit like cannibalism, it is not something that is permissibly done without extenuating circumstances. It is not acceptable without significant justification. But I think the guy in the original story is satisfying all the qualifiers.

Also it is only acceptable at the personal level. The state of course should not be engaged in this sort of thing because they are an arbiter of justice and not personally involved.

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 12:54

Depends how close you are to the event. If you tortured my family I think venting my pain, anger and the destruction of "who I used to be" is the only thing that will prevent me from being completely destroyed myself. So in a very real sense, it can be an act of self preservation.

In a way it is a bit like cannibalism, it is not something that is permissibly done without extenuating circumstances. It is not acceptable without significant justification. But I think the guy in the original story is satisfying all the qualifiers.

Also it is only acceptable at the personal level. The state of course should not be engaged in this sort of thing because they are an arbiter of justice and not personally involved.

Agreed 100%. Actually I feel the same way about the death penalty, and for the same reason. The State should not have the power to take a life - that should be left to the aggrieved party's representative(s). If they won't pull the trigger, then life in prison it is.

montanadave

07-09-12, 13:12

This POS was given a second chance he didn't deserve and has proven, yet again, he is incapable of coloring within the societal lines established by the majority to maintain some semblance of social order.

He's a predator. Whether by choice or predetermined is immaterial. He must be segregated from society to protect the rest of us. And whether he is locked up for life or executed is for the courts and a jury to decide.

Personally, I think anyone given a life sentence without possibility of parole should be given the option, on an annual basis, of electing to be euthanized. If I were ever locked up in a concrete box with no possibility of ever breathing free air again, I know what my choice would be.

Failure2Stop

07-09-12, 15:33

Depends how close you are to the event.

I still disagree.
One can never fill that hole with blood, unless that hole was already there begging to be filled.
I try to avoid absolute statements, but I cannot get behind torture, no matter the victim.

Magic_Salad0892

07-09-12, 16:21

QuietShootr

07-09-12, 16:47

I still disagree.
One can never fill that hole with blood, unless that hole was already there begging to be filled.
I try to avoid absolute statements, but I cannot get behind torture, no matter the victim.

I say that's a good general guideline, but if this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom) were someone I cared about, the things I would do would make Clyde Shelton look like Mother Teresa.

a0cake

07-09-12, 17:02

I understand determinism as well as someone who doesn't subscribe to it can. I assume you consider yourself a "Hard Determinist" then?

Yes, I'm a hard determinist. Most of the distinction between hard-determinism, soft-determinism, and compatibilism is purely a game of semantics for people who are uncomfortable with the idea and need to partially reconcile it with the cherished but untenable notion of free-will.

It comes down to accepting that mind and body are but one single substance. There is no "ghost in the machine." Your consciousness is not something that exists outside of the body; everything you think and do is purely contingent on your material composition. A person of physical composition X will always make decision Y based on how his or her neurological composition reacts to specific environmental inputs. Yes, a person may be presented with a "choice" or "option" between Y and Z, but which one gets selected is purely dependent on a physical series of endless causes and effects that have been in motion since the beginning of space-time. There is no "spirit" or "ghost" living inside of you that controls your brain chemistry. So whatever choices you make are the ones that you HAD to make, regardless of the fact that it feels like some separate internal consciousness made it. Rather, the conscious "you" simply becomes cognitively aware of a decision made by a material process. Saying "I could have done Z instead of Y" is like saying "I could have lived in a different universe with different laws of physics." It makes no sense.

It's also nonsensical to say "if I was him, I would have done something else." No, if you were him, you would BE him molecule for molecule, and would have necessarily made the exact same choice. In this way, the traditional sense of "blame" dissolves.

This does not mean that there are no consequences for pedophiles and murderers. Just because "will" and "decision" are physical processes does not mean there can be no judicial judgement. Those with a natural propensity to kill (without cause) and rape are simply defective humans and need to be segregated, imprisoned, or killed if they're too dangerous to be left alive. These traits are the inevitable result of an accidental existence by an imperfect evolutionary process. But torturing a human being for its un-chosen, inherent, material composition? Nope.

Now, you might say "what if I'm determined to make the choice to torture." Well, until you actually do it, there is no reason to assume you are bound to do so. Your material decision making process can still presumably lead to another decision. This is why we are still able to define ethical actions.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 17:11

Agreed 100%. Actually I feel the same way about the death penalty, and for the same reason. The State should not have the power to take a life - that should be left to the aggrieved party's representative(s). If they won't pull the trigger, then life in prison it is.

I could live with that.

Personally, I think anyone given a life sentence without possibility of parole should be given the option, on an annual basis, of electing to be euthanized. If I were ever locked up in a concrete box with no possibility of ever breathing free air again, I know what my choice would be.

You shouldn't make the mistake of believing that these creatures think in the same way as civilized people. If they thought the way you do, they wouldn't be doing the things that end up with them in a box in the first place.

I still disagree.
One can never fill that hole with blood, unless that hole was already there begging to be filled.
I try to avoid absolute statements, but I cannot get behind torture, no matter the victim.

Absolutely it will not fill the hole, will not bring anyone back and will not fix what happened in any way, shape or form. Nothing will do that. What it will do for some people is allow them to continue living and permit them to live with themselves knowing they did what was right.

It's a lot like burying your loved ones in expensive caskets. They don't know, they never see it. But it is a sense of doing right by them and knowing you honored them properly. Attending to the needs of those who tortured and murdered a loved one sorta falls into the same category.

There is a Confucian idea related to this that says "No man should live under the same heaven with the murderer of his brother or father."

I think it reasonably applies to any loved one. I understand you don't share these ideas.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 17:18

It's also nonsensical to say "if I was him, I would have done something else." No, if you were him, you would BE him molecule for molecule, and would have necessarily made the exact same choice.

We're just back to the frog and scorpion. And I guess that is why you kill all the scorpions. And if I happen to be a scorpion, I guess that is just the way it is. Nature is harsh.

Now, you might say "what if I'm determined to make the choice to torture." Well, until you actually do it, there is no reason to assume you are bound to do so. Your material decision making process can still presumably lead to another decision. This is why we are still able to define ethical actions.

I'm gonna just go with I'm "God's instrument" or "natures balance" depending upon your beliefs. I am either hard wired or socially conditioned to be capable of certain things if certain unacceptable things happen.

It's pretty simple, don't commit atrocities against me or my family and I am a completely civilized person.

But if a holocaust victim provided an SS doctor "special treatment" I would be hard pressed to say it was wrong or that there is something wrong with the victim. In a very real sense I would view it as therapy.

a0cake

07-09-12, 17:25

Nature is harsh.

Yep, but evolution has given our species large frontal lobes, which enable us to reason, be rational, and define morality and ethics. Don't forget that we ARE nature. So if "we" are physically enabled to ponder questions of morality and ethics, I suggest that it's no contradiction to do so. Just because the rest of the animal kingdom lives by "might makes right" doesn't mean we must.

And fortunately, the question of free-will vs determinism is not a matter of belief, nor a personal choice. It's a matter of science. The answer still eludes us, but in the last few years determinism has gained much scientific ground. We should fully understand consciousness in the next 50 years. Hopefully in the next 150, evolution-deniers and proponents of the pseudoscience known as substance-dualism will be a thing of the past and we can finally reach the full height of human potential.

Failure2Stop

07-09-12, 17:33

Absolutely it will not fill the hole, will not bring anyone back and will not fix what happened in any way, shape or form. Nothing will do that. What it will do for some people is allow them to continue living and permit them to live with themselves knowing they did what was right.

It's a lot like burying your loved ones in expensive caskets. They don't know, they never see it. But it is a sense of doing right by them and knowing you honored them properly. Attending to the needs of those who tortured and murdered a loved one sorta falls into the same category.

There is a Confucian idea related to this that says "No man should live under the same heaven with the murderer of his brother or father."

I think it reasonably applies to any loved one. I understand you don't share these ideas.

Just so I am following, your disagreement is that instant execution is insufficient?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Mjolnir

07-09-12, 17:34

****in pedophile degenerates. The patrons should have "accidentally" killed his ass while detaining him. In doing so, the act would have been the highest form of "public service" performed for that community.

But like the "Rage Virus" in "28 Days Later" any of that freak's blood would be contagious.

No thanks. Just shoot him.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 17:49

Just so I am following, your disagreement is that instant execution is insufficient?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

No, I'm only saying I can understand some people who might do things others would consider extreme. If it was my kid, it is unlikely that I could successfully lay my hands on the guy to do the things that would provide me some peace of mind. So I'd have to live with it, like I live with many of the other injustices of life.

But if I could do something more, it would make me more able to endure the tragedy that I'd have to live with for the remainder of my life. Keep in mind there are things that are so horrible some people aren't even willing to continue living with it at all. Once you reach that point, the person who caused that tragedy becomes very expendable.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 17:56

Yep, but evolution has given our species large frontal lobes, which enable us to reason, be rational, and define morality and ethics. Don't forget that we ARE nature. So if "we" are physically enabled to ponder questions of morality and ethics, I suggest that it's no contradiction to do so. Just because the rest of the animal kingdom lives by "might makes right" doesn't mean we must.

And fortunately, the question of free-will vs determinism is not a matter of belief, nor a personal choice. It's a matter of science. The answer still eludes us, but in the last few years determinism has gained much scientific ground. We should fully understand consciousness in the next 50 years. Hopefully in the next 150, evolution-deniers and proponents of the pseudoscience known as substance-dualism will be a thing of the past and we can finally reach the full height of human potential.

My point is that sometimes civilization and evolution wins, sometimes nature wins if you truly believe in determinism.

I think "free will vs. determinism" is a lot like the "nature vs. nurture" debate and the answer is both, not one or the other.

We all have reptilian predator genes in our DNA, some more than others. And most all of us understand right from wrong, certainly this rapist did, but some of us simply don't care. Free will does not always mean the correct decision is made simply because the capacity to reason out the correct decision exist. People prove that every day.

I think this guy rapes kids because he is a broken ****ing individual. He knows it's wrong but he's literally ****ed up in the head. He's like any other rapist, he puts his wishes over those of others. And for that he should forfeit his life. And should somebody he has wronged get ahold of him and make his last moments a living hell, to me that is karma, balance and justice.

a0cake

07-09-12, 18:23

I think "free will vs. determinism" is a lot like the "nature vs. nurture" debate and the answer is both, not one or the other.

Not trying to "preach" to you or what-not, but that's simply untrue if you take the classic philosophical definition of free-will, which is something like: "I could have done otherwise in regard to a past action."

This definition of free-will is pretty much debunked. There is very little argument among neuroscientists on this.

Some have tried to salvage free-will on the basis of the randomness of the Quantum (and this MIGHT unseat determinism...we'll see), but quantum randomness leaves one no more "free" than determinism.

If you want to reign in the definition of "free-will" to something like "interacting intelligently with the world around you," then it's salvageable.

If not, the time is soon coming when we'll need to let it go.

chadbag

07-09-12, 19:01

And fortunately, the question of free-will vs determinism is not a matter of belief, nor a personal choice. It's a matter of science. The answer still eludes us, but in the last few years determinism has gained much scientific ground. We should fully understand consciousness in the next 50 years. Hopefully in the next 150, evolution-deniers and proponents of the pseudoscience known as substance-dualism will be a thing of the past and we can finally reach the full height of human potential.

It is not a matter of science. It is a matter of actual existence. Science is merely a description of the actuality of things.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 19:03

Not trying to "preach" to you or what-not, but that's simply untrue if you take the classic philosophical definition of free-will, which is something like: "I could have done otherwise in regard to a past action."

This definition of free-will is pretty much debunked. There is very little argument among neuroscientists on this.

Some have tried to salvage free-will on the basis of the randomness of the Quantum (and this MIGHT unseat determinism...we'll see), but quantum randomness leaves one no more "free" than determinism.

If you want to reign in the definition of "free-will" to something like "interacting intelligently with the world around you," then it's salvageable.

If not, the time is soon coming when we'll need to let it go.

I'd like to see some objective evidence of that.

a0cake

07-09-12, 19:04

It is not a matter of science. It is a matter of actual existence. Science is merely a description of the actuality of things.

Of course. "It's a matter of science" simply means that it's a question that science can answer. :confused:

chadbag

07-09-12, 19:09

Of course. "It's a matter of science" simply means that it's a question that science can answer. :confused:

Science doesn't "decide" things or "answer questions." It only provides insight into things [better description of things] as it gets closer to describing the actuality of something.

Science is not a panacea and when we "think" we have described human consciousness, we will probably be quite far from the real reality and another 300 years later we may have halved the distance but things will only be getting more interesting as more questions arise from what we learn.

--

a0cake

07-09-12, 19:17

Science doesn't "decide" things or "answer questions." It only provides insight into things [better description of things] as it gets closer to describing the actuality of something.

Science is not a panacea and when we "think" we have described human consciousness, we will probably be quite far from the real reality and another 300 years later we may have halved the distance but things will only be getting more interesting as more questions arise from what we learn.

--

You are preaching to the choir here. This is all abundantly obvious. The enterprise of science provides explanations and predictions based on falsifiable and testable evidence. The body of knowledge that results is always open to exposition and / or revision. To say that science doesn't "answer questions" in an absolute sense is true, as we always arrive at a best guess. But that is an implied understanding, and we can rightfully say that science DOES answer questions we have about the world around is in a practical way, which is all we can ask for. Nothing I've said runs counter to the ability and scope of the scientific enterprise. There's no reason to believe that science will not eventually describe rather fully the idea of consciousness.

Wiggity

07-09-12, 19:29

Damn, I didn't expect this thread to explode like this!

Not a bad thing, very interesting thread.

a0cake

07-09-12, 19:42

I'd like to see some objective evidence of that.

Here is what some prominent neuroscientists are saying about it (although there is disagreement of course):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8058541/Neuroscience-free-will-and-determinism-Im-just-a-machine.html

http://phys.org/news186830615.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341880603&sr=1-1&keywords=free+will

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047972/neuroscience-and-free-will-when-definitions-become-important/

Here's an overview of some specific studies:

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

This is probably the best overview of all the positions from a philosophical perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Contemporary-Introduction-Free-Will/dp/019514970X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

THCDDM4

07-09-12, 19:50

Yep, but evolution has given our species large frontal lobes, which enable us to reason, be rational, and define morality and ethics. Don't forget that we ARE nature. So if "we" are physically enabled to ponder questions of morality and ethics, I suggest that it's no contradiction to do so. Just because the rest of the animal kingdom lives by "might makes right" doesn't mean we must.

And fortunately, the question of free-will vs determinism is not a matter of belief, nor a personal choice. It's a matter of science. The answer still eludes us, but in the last few years determinism has gained much scientific ground. We should fully understand consciousness in the next 50 years. Hopefully in the next 150, evolution-deniers and proponents of the pseudoscience known as substance-dualism will be a thing of the past and we can finally reach the full height of human potential.

Since when are free will and determinism mutually excluaive? It all depends on your accepted definition of "free will".

I have not fhe time at the moment to debate it fully, but eill come back when I do have time to do so.

If everything is determined and we have no free will- what is the point of debating any position or belief- everything is pre determined...

I define free will as:
"Freedom to act according to ones determined motives without hindrance from other individuals". Thus free will and determinism is compatible- aka compatibilism argues philisophically that free will anddeterminism are indeed inclusive of eachtother. A form of soft determinism if you will.

If you can provide a coherent definition of "metaphysical free will" (incombatibalists have yet to provide one) I'd live to hear it.

Pardon the typos; quick typing and no time to fix...

a0cake

07-09-12, 20:14

Since when are free will and determinism mutually excluaive? It all depends on your accepted definition of "free will".

Yep, this is important and I touched on that in one of my replies to SA, in case you might have missed it. You're right in that the two ideas are not mutually-exclusive under a certain definition of free-will. But the traditional definition is "I could have been a firefighter although I became a policeman" or something to that effect. Much of the debate about compatibilism and all the different "isms" revolves around redefining free will. It's largely semantical if you ask me. Daniel Dennett gets close in his book "Freedom Evolves" but I still see it as an elaborate word game.

If everything is determined and we have no free will- what is the point of debating any position or belief- everything is pre determined...

Present actions, determined or not, create future causes. Since you were "determined" to engage in this debate and not just lay on the couch watching TV, your future beliefs about the issue will be contingent on your brain's neurophysiological response to this discussion (inputs). As such, beliefs continue to evolve along an unknowable but determined path based on present and past causes. Just be happy that your brain is apparently not a lazy one that would drive you to lay on a couch and not think. :D

I define free will as:
"Freedom to act according to ones determined motives without hindrance from other individuals". Thus free will and determinism is compatible- aka compatibilism argues philisophically that free will anddeterminism are indeed inclusive of eachtother. A form of soft determinism if you will.

If you can provide a coherent definition of "metaphysical free will" (incombatibalists have yet to provide one) I'd live to hear it.

I use the classic understanding of free-will, which is that one could have done X but chose Y. By that definition determinism and free-will are incompatible. If you take some of the "freedom" out of free-will, you can make it work. This is tempting if you want to keep moral responsibility in the picture as opposed to pure causal-accountability. I'm more concerned about what is really true, rather than what the implications are. We can deal with that when we get there. I'm still reading, researching, and learning (just like everyone else), so I'm not stubborn in considering other options. I just haven't found a reason to subscribe yet.

Now, Quantum Mechanics is a bit outside my reach, and there seems to be evidence that determinisms days may be numbered because of it (assuming quantum effects on a micro level - as I understand it, whether this happens is still unknown). But even so, I don't see how the apparent randomness of the quantum doesn't just stand in place for hard determinism and eradicate free-will just the same.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 21:35

Here is what some prominent neuroscientists are saying about it (although there is disagreement of course):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8058541/Neuroscience-free-will-and-determinism-Im-just-a-machine.html

http://phys.org/news186830615.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341880603&sr=1-1&keywords=free+will

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047972/neuroscience-and-free-will-when-definitions-become-important/

Here's an overview of some specific studies:

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

This is probably the best overview of all the positions from a philosophical perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Contemporary-Introduction-Free-Will/dp/019514970X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I don't see anything conclusive or imminently conclusive and I see quite a bit of philosophy. Lots and lots of philosophy. Some scientist philosophize about a great many things, it doesn't make it science.

a0cake

07-09-12, 22:21

I don't see anything conclusive or imminently conclusive and I see quite a bit of philosophy. Lots and lots of philosophy. Some scientist philosophize about a great many things, it doesn't make it science.

If you're asking for a magic link that lays it all out in a nice little package, that's not going to happen.

I gave you articles that reference specific studies by scientists in the field. Internet articles are just going to tell a news story. They're going to give you the back story and some conclusions, not data. The scientists aren't philosophizing to the reporters, they're basing the comments off of conclusions derived from empirical evidence and an understanding of how the brain functions. And most Neuroscientists have reached the same conclusions. This isn't an "appeal to authority," it's a clue.

It's up to you to research the studies mentioned, the scientists, and the science behind them. In other words, there's some heavy lifting involved and I can't do it for you on M4Carbine.net

I linked you to a book by Neuroscientist Sam Harris, which delves into both the philosophy and the science behind the free-will debate.

I mentioned Cognitive Scientist Daniel Dennett and his book "Freedom Evolves" as a source of information (though he's extremely boring and is a compatibilist...some say he pulls it off. I don't know).

Here's an actual study of unconscious brain patterns that attempts to monitor single neurons, unlike Hayne's FMRI or Libet's EEG (both mentioned in articles I linked to). This is what the actual studies look like if you really want to try to get that in depth. This particular study showed an over 80% success rate in predicting a subject's decision before the subject became aware a decision was made.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627310010822

Now, of course, you're going to find opposition. Until the evidence is more conclusive, I'm in the no free-will camp, but am willing to change as we learn more; although I will be quite surprised if the traditional definition of free-will survives the next century. Hopefully we'll be around to find out.

usmcvet

07-09-12, 22:22

The guy needs a Lead Asprin.

SteyrAUG

07-09-12, 22:50

If you're asking for a magic link that lays it all out in a nice little package, that's not going to happen.

I gave you articles that reference specific studies by scientists in the field. Internet articles are just going to tell a news story. They're going to give you the back story and some conclusions, not data. The scientists aren't philosophizing to the reporters, they're basing the comments off of conclusions derived from empirical evidence and an understanding of how the brain functions. And most Neuroscientists have reached the same conclusions. This isn't an "appeal to authority," it's a clue.

It's up to you to research the studies mentioned, the scientists, and the science behind them. In other words, there's some heavy lifting involved and I can't do it for you on M4Carbine.net

I linked you to a book by Neuroscientist Sam Harris, which delves into both the philosophy and the science behind the free-will debate.

I mentioned Cognitive Scientist Daniel Dennett and his book "Freedom Evolves" as a source of information (though he's extremely boring and is a compatibilist...some say he pulls it off. I don't know).

Here's an actual study of unconscious brain patterns that attempts to monitor single neurons, unlike Hayne's FMRI or Libet's EEG (both mentioned in articles I linked to). This is what the actual studies look like if you really want to try to get that in depth. This particular study showed an over 80% success rate in predicting a subject's decision before the subject became aware a decision was made.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627310010822

Now, of course, you're going to find opposition. Until the evidence is more conclusive, I'm in the no free-will camp, but am willing to change as we learn more; although I will be quite surprised if the traditional definition of free-will survives the next century. Hopefully we'll be around to find out.

I looked at everything you provided.

Much of it was far from objective, the things that were objective were hardly conclusive.

You were the one that said "This definition of free-will is pretty much debunked. There is very little argument among neuroscientists on this." and that is hardly the case.

It is certainly an interesting idea but it is little more than that at this time. You can start with the criticisms of the notion at the very Wiki link you provided. In fact those criticisms offer a very simple explanation that undermines the entire idea. And then there is the fact that all "results were gathered using finger movements, and may not necessarily generalize to other actions such as thinking, or even other motor actions in different situations. Indeed, the human act of planning has implications for free will and so this ability must also be explained by any theories of unconscious decision making."

Again, just because some scientist choose to explore or even engage in philosophy, that doesn't make their ideas "science" or "conclusive."

As you noted yourself, the evidence is hardly conclusive. But lack of evidence doesn't prove the alternate theory which is actually the camp you are in. It doesn't mean free will is conclusively proven either, we really don't have conclusive evidence to "prove" either position.

It's a lot like arguing the possibility of invisible planets in our solar system. It's an interesting idea, but just because there is no conclusive evidence to dispute the idea doesn't mean they are probably there. And I could probably get a few scientists willing to speculate that dark matter ideas could in fact be invisible planets. But we would still be very much engaged in philosophy and conjecture.