[BRussell]

It's a long-ish article, but interesting. The debate is whether we should use the term "evil" to describe people.

If you're a liar and manipulator who feels no sympathy when you screw over other people, you have antisocial personality disorder. If you get sexual gratification from torturing people, you have a paraphilia called sadism. Screw dead bodies? Necrophilia.

Are these people evil, or is evil an old fashioned concept that prevents analytical approaches to explaining behavior?

Some quotes from the article:

pro-"evil"

"We are talking about people who commit breathtaking acts, who do so repeatedly, who know what they're doing, and are doing it in peacetime" under no threat to themselves, said Dr. Michael Stone, the Columbia psychiatrist, who has examined several hundred killers at Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center in New Hampton, N.Y., and others at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens, where he consults and teaches. "We know from experience who these people are, and how they behave," and it is time, he said, to give their behavior "the proper appellation."

"There is a group we call lethal predators, who are psychopathic, sadistic, and sane, and people have said this is approaching a measure of evil, and with good reason," Dr. Hare said. "What I would say is that there are some people for whom evil acts - what we would consider evil acts - are no big deal. And I agree with Michael Stone that the circumstances and context are less important than who they are."

anti-"evil"

Dr. Simon considers the notion of evil to be of no use to forensic psychiatry, in part because evil is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, shaped by political and cultural as well as religious values. The terrorists on Sept. 11 thought that they were serving God, he argues; those who kill people at abortion clinics also claim to be doing so. If the issue is history's most transcendent savages, on the other hand, most people agree that Hitler and Pol Pot would qualify.

"When you start talking about evil, psychiatrists don't know anything more about it than anyone else," Dr. Simon said. "Our opinions might carry more weight, under the patina or authority of the profession, but the point is, you can call someone evil and so can I. So what? What does it add?"

"This could only conceal a subtle important truth about many of these people, such as the high rate of personality disorders," Dr. Dietz said. He added: "The fact is that there aren't many in whom I couldn't find some redeeming attributes and some humanity. As far as we can tell, the causes of their behavior are biological, psychological and social, and do not so far demonstrably include the work of Lucifer."

[MacGorilla]

Can be evil, unfortunately.

[Millennium]

If people can be good, then it follows logically that they can also be evil, because the two terms basically define each other. The real question is, what does it mean to be evil? For that matter, what does it mean to be good?

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Are these people evil, or is evil an old fashioned concept that prevents analytical approaches to explaining behavior?

the term "evil" is simply used to describe something one doesn't understand. in the dark ages everything that was "out of the norm" had to be classified somehow, - and the most basic principle of classifying things, is to devide the world into "good and evil" (i.e. things that are beneficial and things that are harmful)

"evil" comes from the word "übel" (germanic root) which in turn comes from "über" ("over"), meaning that which "puts itself over/above god (or the king), - that which does not conform to god's will.

once the understanding is there, and behaviour (for example) can be analyzed and described, there is no more use for the term "evil". it is basically an out-dated paradigm.

[Twilly Spree]

Yes people can be evil. CE, NE and LE

[sugar_coated]

evil doers are for real.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Yes people can be evil. CE, NE and LE

I always preferred CN, much more flexibility.

[Agasthya]

Yes, they can be..

[TETENAL]

The key words here:

Dr. Simon considers the notion of evil to be of no use to forensic psychiatry.

There you got it. These people were discussing whether "evil" is a useful term for forensic psychiatry. That doesn't mean they are saying it's a useless word to describe behavior in general or are even doubting that people can be evil at all.
I would also like to point out that criminal behavior is no disease in itself. Tax fraud is rarely caused by a brain damage (that's just an obvious example, no other crime is a disease).

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
the term "evil" is simply used to describe something one doesn't understand.

I disagree. Just because I understand something doesn't mean I automatically like it. If it's something that I really dislike it's "evil".

Böse

Ich bin in einer finsteren Sekte
Die in mir die Erkenntnis weckte
Daß unsere kurze Daseinsfrist
Mehr Spaß macht, wenn man böse ist
Nun hat man mich zwar gut erzogen
Hab nie geklaut, hab nie gelogen
Doch künftig werd ich danach streben
Mich ganz dem Bösen hinzugeben

Böse !
Ich bin so böse !
Böse !
Ich bin so böse !

Ich will bei Rot über die Ampel gehen
Besonders wenn es kleine Kinder sehen
Die Gabel mit der rechten Hand fassen
Und den anderen lang baumeln lassen
Ich eß Nutella mit dem Löffel
Und mit dem Messer schneid ich Kartöffel
Und gibt es nur noch 2 Wurstscheiben
Dann nehm ich genau diese beiden

Böse !
Ich bin so böse !
Böse !
Ich bin so böse !

Ich öffne gleich am 1.Dezember
Alle Türchen vom Weihnachtskalender
Ich will im Beisein anderer flüstern
Ich will im Kino mit Papier rumknistern
Mit neuen Hosen auf Bäume steigen
Mit nackten Finger auf Menschen zeigen
In Gesprächen dazwischen plappern
Popel fressen, Fingernägel knabbern

Böse !
Ich bin so böse !
Böse !
Unsagbar böse !
Böse !
Entsetzlich böse !


Ich mach in Zukunft meine Schuhe
Immer nur mit einem Knoten zu´e
Die Hände immer in den Hosentaschen
Und nach dem Zähne putzen heimlich naschen
3x in den Apfel beißen
Und danach den Rest wegschmeißen
Auf fremden Klo´s in Stehen pissen
Danach nicht spülen, Deckel nicht schließen

Böse !

[saab95]

It is evil when a person imposes upon another by use of force.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
the term "evil" is simply used to describe something one doesn't understand. in the dark ages everything that was "out of the norm" had to be classified somehow, - and the most basic principle of classifying things, is to devide the world into "good and evil" (i.e. things that are beneficial and things that are harmful)

"evil" comes from the word "übel" (germanic root) which in turn comes from "über" ("over"), meaning that which "puts itself over/above god (or the king), - that which does not conform to god's will.

once the understanding is there, and behaviour (for example) can be analyzed and described, there is no more use for the term "evil". it is basically and out-dated paradigm.

I think you are right and I agree with you.

Evil vs Good is a commodity of the weak or lazy of mind.

Things are never what they seem.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by saab95:
It is evil when a person imposes upon another by use of force.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
These people were discussing whether "evil" is a useful term for forensic psychiatry. That doesn't mean they are saying it's a useless word to describe behavior in general or are even doubting that people can be evil at all.

Yeah, I really mis-titled this thread. The article isn't about whether people can be evil, it's about whether we should use the label.

But I think it goes deeper than just the field of forensic psychiatry. It's about how we understand other people. Is it ever helpful to call people "evil?" The US has had several presidents that have used the term 'evil' to label other countries, for example. Is that appropriate or helpful?

My problem is that it doesn't further understanding at all. It's just a way of ending the analysis. If someone is evil, why bother to try to figure out how to explain or change their behavior or prevent it from happening in the future?

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's just a way of ending the analysis...

...or quelling dissent.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
...Just because I understand something doesn't mean I automatically like it. If it's something that I really dislike it's "evil"....

i never said that the "reverse" is true. that's a real bad misinterpertation of my post.

...but here is a cookie with teh whip cream for the knorkator lyrics! \m/

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i never said that the "reverse" is true. that's a real bad misinterpertation of my post.

Good, the reverse isn't true, but neither is the verse. I don't understand French, that doesn't mean that I believe it is an evil language. I don't understand quantum physics, I don't understand why people think Heidi Klum is hot, I don't understand women. Nothing of that I believe to be evil.

So when the verse isn't true and the reverse is neither than your statement is completely inept as definition of evil.

Many many people – philosophers, theologians, political scientists and the like – have given a lot of thought to reach a very precise understanding of ethics.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
...I don't understand women.

heh. nobody does.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
So when the verse isn't true and the reverse is neither than your statement is completely inept as definition of evil.

*sigh* i wasn't talking about today, - i was talking about how the word evil came into existence, and what kind of frame of mind produced the language.

my claim stands, - once you understand the "way things work", the idea of "evil" becomes obsolete.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Many many people – philosophers, theologians, political scientists and the like – have given a lot of thought to reach a very precise understanding of ethics.

...okay. how does this figure into the discussion?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
*sigh* i wasn't talking about today, - i was talking about how the word evil came into existence, and what kind of frame of mind produced the language.

You claimed that evil comes from evil-doers putting themselves über god's will. There is no "non-understanding" in the etymology you presented. People very well do understand God's will (or Natural Law to name the philosophical equivalent). So they very well understand what is evil.

...okay. how does this figure into the discussion?

It tells you that people do indeed discern ethical values by thought and understanding…

once you understand the "way things work", the idea of "evil" becomes obsolete.

…therefore disproving your claim.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You claimed that evil comes from evil-doers putting themselves über god's will.

no, i claimed that the word "evil" comes from the germanic language ("übel"), and that at the time (the early middle ages) people divided their immediate surroundings into "good and evil". average people back then weren't too big on "understanding how things work", hence they simply deemed that which they didn't understand and felt threatened by, - "evil". capice?

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It tells you that people do indeed discern ethical values by thought and understanding…

you don't even understand the premise of the thread topic, do you? i'm not denying that people actually do horrible things, - but that simply dubbing their deeds as being an act of "evil", is stupid, lazy and at the core, - completely dishonest.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
no, i claimed that the word "evil" comes from the germanic language ("übel"), and that at the time (the early middle ages) people divided their immediate surroundings into "good and evil".

That's the etymology of the word.

average people back then weren't too big on "understanding how things work", hence they simply deemed that which they didn't understand and felt threatened by, - "evil". capice?

And that's unrelated to the etymology and in fact according to your etymology was a mis-use of the word. It is mostly irrelevant to the presence and not indicative that the proper use of the word is not useful. This thread mostly discusses the present use of the word evil.

you don't even understand the premise of the thread topic, do you?

I very well understand this. Psychiatrists were discussing the usefulness of the word "evil" for psychiatry. "Evil" is a ethical evaluation. Ethical evaluations may be totally irrelevant for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. I will believe a psychiatrist if he says so. That doesn't mean that an ethical evaluation is irrelevant in other contexts.

i'm not denying that people actually do horrible things, - but that simply dubbing their deeds as being an act of "evil", is stupid, lazy and at the core, - completely dishonest.

It's none of that. We constantly ethically evaluate our and other's behavior. It's part of human nature and basis for society. There is nothing stupid about that.

I give you that the mis-use of the word evil for things that scare you simply because they are alien is lazy and stupid, but such mis-use does not disprove that people can indeed be evil and properly labeled like that.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
This thread mostly discusses the present use of the word evil.

presently the word evil is used by people who want to force their "ethics" down everybody's throat, insisting that they hold the absolute in terms of moral coduct, when it actually just constitutes an abuse of power (on their part).

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I give you that the mis-use of the word evil for things that scare you simply because they are alien is lazy and stupid, but such mis-use does not disprove that people can indeed be evil and properly labeled like that.

well, then define evil. maybe people can be good and evil in a forrest gump kind of way ("evil is, as evil does"). but what does that tell you? - nothing! it's completely circular logic, and has nothing to do with "ethics" per se.

if you wanna call somebody who violates your sense of ethics "evil", then so be it. but once again, that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
presently the word evil is used by people who want to force their "ethics" down everybody's throat, insisting that they hold the absolute in terms of moral coduct, when it actually just constitutes an abuse of power (on their part).

Exaggeratedly worded, but correct in principle. And there is nothing wrong with that as there is a general consensus about what these ethics are (god's will).

well, then define evil. maybe people can be good and evil in a forrest gump kind of way ("evil is, as evil does"). but what does that tell you?

It tells me who goes to jail and who does not. Seems pretty important to me.

if you wanna call somebody who violates your sense of ethics "evil", then so be it. but once again, that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

It's not up to you to change the topic of discussion. And when you try then at least tell us what you want to discuss. Until then I take it the question is still "Can people be evil?" And as long as there are people that violate my sense of ethics, there are people I deem to be evil.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Exaggeratedly worded, but correct in principle. And there is nothing wrong with that as there is a general consensus about what these ethics are (god's will).

It tells me who goes to jail and who does not. Seems pretty important to me.

It's not up to you to change the topic of discussion. And when you try then at least tell us what you want to discuss. Until then I take it the question is still "Can people be evil?" And as long as there are people that violate my sense of ethics, there are people I deem to be evil.

Translation:
1. "good" is based on general consensus
2. "evil" is a function of our courts
3. "evil" is what I say it is

You're all over the place.

[TETENAL]

I'm not "all over the place", but I learn that it is pointless to discuss with bullheaded anarchists. I invite you to continue the discussion on my ignore list.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I'm not "all over the place", but I learn that it is pointless to discuss with bullheaded anarchists. I invite you to continue the discussion on my ignore list.

Jesus H. Christ what a baby. Why even visit the forum if you're take any challenge to your precious precious opinions so personally?

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And there is nothing wrong with that as there is a general consensus about what these ethics are (god's will).

LOL. you are kidding , - right?

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It tells me who goes to jail and who does not. Seems pretty important to me.

errrm...let me introduce you to the word "criminal"...or "dilinquent", if that suits you better.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And when you try then at least tell us what you want to discuss.

did you read BRussel's last reply?

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And as long as there are people that violate my sense of ethics, there are people I deem to be evil.

alles klar.

[zigzag]

Life has taught me that we're all born with temperaments, that some are born with psycho/sociopathic predispositions, and that they're mostly incorrigible. This is difficult for academia to accept because it flies in the face of 20th Century rationalism, which had us believing that with only enough love and education, anti-social behavior could be conquered. But some people are just plain screwy. I think nature, which loves variety, deems it so - some of our greatest leaders and innovators (and some of our worst) have been sociopaths. Some advance the species, and others just keep us on our toes. This is one thing I can appreciate about the old-time religions: unlike the Unitarians, who never talk about evil and seem to think everyone is a budding Ghandi, the old-timers have understood all along that some people are just plain bad (with apologies to Shaft, who is superbad). That the religious attribute this to a supernatural force like Satan is kinda dumb, but whether it's attributable to natural or supernatural forces, I think they're on to something.

I think this change in perspective parallels the arc of modern sexual politics: for a while, it was fashionable to think that males and females were tabula rasa and had the same emotional and intellectual make-up, which anyone who's been married and/or had children knows is untrue. But we had to go through that phase for the sake of equal opportunity, a good thing. The trick is figuring out how to come to terms with people's innate differences without using them as a basis for unfair discrimination.

That'll be ten dollars.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Jesus H. Christ what a baby. Why even visit the forum if you're take any challenge to your precious precious opinions so personally?

Sorry, but I don't see sentences like "this is irrelevant to the discussion" as a challenge to my position. It's a refusal to discuss. If you believe that ethics are irrelevant than you're welcome to present your arguments, but don't come with "it's stupid and lazy".

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Life has taught me that we're all born with temperaments, that some are born with psycho/sociopathic predispositions, and that they're mostly incorrigible.

incorrigible, maybe. the other question is, - are they unexplainable? i certainly don't think so.

Originally posted by zigzag:
That the religious attribute this to a supernatural force like Satan is kinda dumb, but whether it's attributable to natural or supernatural forces, I think they're on to something.

"supernatural forces"? and that from you? are you still up for that "wendy's dinner"?

[thunderous_funker]

I'm not sure I know what "evil" means, but I guess that's ok.

I operate under the principle of fluuben vs gluuben. Everyone knows what fluuben is so when they violate it, we are justified in calling them gluuben and punishing them.

So you can keep your "evil" or whatnot and I'll keep running things under the clear and rational auspices of the time honored fluuben/gluuben system.

As long as you don't go all gluuben on me, we won't have a problem and I won't be forced to apply the necessary pain and suffering to fix you with the full force of fluuben indignation and the support of fluuben people like me.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sorry, but I don't see sentences like "this is irrelevant to the discussion" as a challenge to my position. It's a refusal to discuss. If you believe that ethics are irrelevant than you're welcome to present your arguments, but don't come with "it's stupid and lazy".

i'm sorry if i offended you there. but i think we weren't talking about the same thing here. just read BRussel's last reply.

i'm not questioning anybody's ethics. i'm just saying that the "concept of evil" (as a simplistic view of the world) is out-dated. that's all.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
errrm...let me introduce you to the word "criminal"...or "dilinquent", if that suits you better.

That's the terms at the level of positive law. Ethics predate positive law and on the level of ethics the terms are "good" and "evil".
If you hadn't any ethics how you you even make law? Certainly reason is insufficient.

incorrigible, maybe. the other question is, - are they unexplainable? i certainly don't think so.

Whether you can explain something is independent of whether you find something ethical or not.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
incorrigible, maybe. the other question is, - are they unexplainable? i certainly don't think so.



"supernatural forces"? and that from you? are you still up for that "wendy's dinner"?

No, not necessarily unexplainable - indeed, I offered an explanation: natural selection. Being bad can be very adaptive.

Being superbad, on the other hand, is just cool.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's the terms at the level of positive law. Ethics predate positive law and on the level of ethics the terms are "good" and "evil".

interesting. "ethics" is a really sticky subject and very personal, - but not a completely "black and white" preposition. imho.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
If you hadn't any ethics how you you even make law? Certainly reason is insufficient.

hmmmm. sorry, i totally have to disagree with you here.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Whether you can explain something is independent of whether you find something ethical or not.

maybe that's why you don't understand women.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
incorrigible, maybe. the other question is, - are they unexplainable? i certainly don't think so.

I agree with zigzag, and BTW ziggy, I think most academics who study antisocial personality disorder would also agree that these people are born rather than made, and that they're not treatable. In fact, most people have figured out that therapy is probably a bad idea with them because they simply learn how to fake it better.

But I also agree with you roberto that that fact doesn't mean analysis stops. Look what we're doing with the human genome project, for example. We don't give up on Down syndrome because people are born with it. We could just call them "stupid" or "retards" and leave it at that, but we don't.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree with zigzag, and BTW ziggy, I think most academics who study antisocial personality disorder would also agree that these people are born rather than made, and that they're not treatable. In fact, most people have figured out that therapy is probably a bad idea with them because they simply learn how to fake it better.

That's reassuring - I guess my frame of reference is rather out-of-date. I grew up in an era when social engineering, utopianism, and the like were still in vogue (we read Skinner in high school - ugh), and I thought we were still transitioning from that. Hell, Gloria Steinem is still insisting that there are no innate gender differences.

Actually, it's disillusionment with that whole era that led me to stop keeping up with trends in the social sciences, so I admit to being in over my head here.

[jbartone]

Yes, people can be evil. Bin Laden is evil, isn't he?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, it's disillusionment with that whole era that led me to stop keeping up with trends in the social sciences, so I admit to being in over my head here.

The supposed "fact" that some of the promises of that era didn't come true all at once doesn't really mean that those things were wrong: rather, IMHO, other factors contributed to the failure of the "utopian" years. For example, implementing some of those "radically progressive" things would require a radical transformation both in individuals and societies, with a quantum leap which sadly didn't have the time to materialise in the '60 and '70s: why? That should, rather, be the question, probably.

Myself, of course, being essentially a philosophical anarchist, I'd give some reasons: not necessarily the "true" ones, but maybe likely if one analyses the power relations of the so-called "revolutionary" periods. Today we are in an essentially reactionary period, OTOH: which only means that sooner or later there'll be another progressive period. Personally, I hope it will be sooner rather than later - also because the Earth's overall (environmental and social) situation is getting worse and worse in a dramatical, almost exponential way.

The real problem is to manage the next worldwide "utopian wave" in a more constructive way than previously (see without authoritarian ideologies instrumentalised by political parties, and so on): maybe an easy accomplishment, maybe not...

[Athens]

maybe some one should define what evil really is

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But I also agree with you roberto that that fact doesn't mean analysis stops. Look what we're doing with the human genome project, for example. We don't give up on Down syndrome because people are born with it. We could just call them "stupid" or "retards" and leave it at that, but we don't.

...i think we have made tremendous progress in the last 30 years alone in terms of psychotherapy and scientific analysis. just about any and every human behavior can be explained, and even if not all "illnesses" and "evils" *g* can (or maybe even should?) be cured, a lot of "imbalances" can be treated indeed. such a thing could have never ever been possible, if we simply had only labeled these behaviors evil, and, as was the case in the past, stopped there.

[SimpleLife]

This world is ours, so far. We can make whatever we want from it.

The Good and Evil are the things that we decide them to be.

The majority will decide who fits or not, and for whatever reason it will see fit.

It is all about conventions we agree upon.

[TETENAL]

"Evil" is independent of "psychiatric illness" or "imbalance". Not only can it not be treated, it must not be treated.

Keep jurisdiction (good vs. evil) and psychiatry (healthy vs. ill) separated as much as possible please.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
"Evil" is independent of "psychiatric illness" or "imbalance". Not only can it not be treated, it must not be treated.

wow. i think it is time that you define what you mean by evil. (or is it really just whatever "offends" your ethics?)

psychological illnesses or imbalances (a lot of them physical) combined with social circumstances is what leads people to "commit crimes", or as you might put it - "commit acts of evil".

and even-though the interrelations between societal, mental and physical factors are, at times, very complex, i challenge you to come up with a different hypothesis.

[edit] in the last ten years or so, people are finding that a lot more behavioral characteristics are due to physical and inherited/inborn factors (NOT SUPERNATURAL!) than "learned" (societal).

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Keep jurisdiction (good vs. evil) and psychiatry (healthy vs. ill) separated as much as possible please.

sorry, but once again, absolutely wrong. in some cases "criminal behavior" can be prevented or at least curbed through the use of psychotherapy. and in those cases it is not only a choice, but society's duty to act, imho.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
wow. i think it is time that you define what you mean by evil. (or is it really just whatever "offends" your ethics?)

I said several times that good/evil is an ethical evaluation of behavior.

psychological illnesses or imbalances (a lot of them physical) combined with social circumstances is what leads people to "commit crimes", or as you might put it - "commit acts of evil".

No, no, no.

This is completely wrong, and it is a very dangerous kind of thinking. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have no psychiatric illness or psychological imbalance whatsoever. What desease causes you to commit tax fraud? I have no statistics but I'm sure that $20,21 StGB apply very very rarely in practice. Most criminals are mentally completely sane. That's a fact.
Neither can you say that people with psychological imbalances or psychiatric deseases will commit crimes. Some such problems may increase the probability, but you must not suppose an automatism here.

and even-though the interrelations between societal, mental and physical factors are, at times, very complex, i challenge you to come up with a different hypothesis.

A hypothesis for criminality? What about the classic motives like greed and jealousy. Or laziness. None of those is a psychiatric desease or psychologic imbalance.

[edit] in the last ten years or so, people are finding that a lot more behavioral characteristics are due to physical and inherited/inborn factors (NOT SUPERNATURAL!) than "learned" (societal).

Where did you find that? The Rassenlehre book of your grandfather? Some psychiatric problems are genetic, some are due to outer physical influences (in-birth, accidents), some are due to infections, and some are learned. But not did recent science conclude that most are inborn.

in some cases "criminal behavior" can be prevented or at least curbed through the use of psychotherapy. and in those cases it is not only a choice, but society's duty to act, imho.

Psychiatric deseases and psychological problems ought to be treated (at the choice of the patient). Criminal behavior can not be must not be psychiatrically treated.
I will tell you what, as soon as you start force treating people for "in born" criminal behavior or start incarcerating them to prevent crimes, I will have to kill you. And I will go to heaven for that.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have no psychiatric illness or psychological imbalance whatsoever. What desease causes you to commit tax fraud?

i'm not talking about petty- or white collar crimes here.

when was the last time you heard somebody refer to "tax fraud" as being "evil". i'm talking about murder, rape, serial killings and holdup murders.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
A hypothesis for criminality? What about the classic motives like greed and jealousy. Or laziness.

lazyness? pffff...what the fu<k? greed and jealousy (when they lead to serious criminal offenses) are usually the direct result from people being seriously fu<ked up along the way (and/or some chemical imbalance).

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I will tell you what, as soon as you start force treating people for "in born" criminal behavior or start incarcerating them to prevent crimes, I will have to kill you. And I will go to heaven for that.

okay, you've lost it. (and i'm not only talking about the argument).

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i'm not talking about petty- or white collar crimes here.

when was the last time you heard somebody refer to "tax fraud" as being "evil". i'm talking about murder, rape, serial killings and holdup murders.

And the majority of murderers, rapists and robbers are mentally sane.

lazyness? pffff...what the fu<k? greed and jealousy (when they lead to serious criminal offenses) are usually the direct result from people being seriously fu<ked up along the way (and/or some chemical imbalance).

Show me where greed and jealousy are listed in the IDC-10. Until then you have no point.

Criminality is no desease period. Since it is not desease it can not and it must not be treated like one.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Most criminals are mentally completely sane. That's a fact.

Prove it.

Make sure you define the following:

Most
Crime
Mental
Completeness
Sanity
Fact

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And the majority of murderers, rapists and robbers are mentally sane.

i wasn't talking about "batshit insane" (though i doubt "most" rapists are your average joe), i was talking about people being seriously emotionally/physically "unbalanced" etc. it's certainly NOT a black and white issue.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Show me where greed and jealousy are listed in the IDC-10.

*duh*

if you kill your girlfriend, cut her up into pieces and feed her to the dogs because she talked to a male classmate, there's something wrong with you. period.

if you go around raping little boys because your uncle boned you when you were 5 and there is some imbalance in your brain, there's something wrong with you.

*errrr...yeah your honor, i killed her, but actually i'm fine because "jealousy" is human emotion and the devil made me do it* pfff

like i said, i wasn't talking about the "evils" of stealing a snickers bar at your local 7/11.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Criminality is no desease period.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
if you kill your girlfriend, cut her up into pieces and feed her to the dogs because she talked to a male classmate, there's something wrong with you. period.

Good, in that case something is wrong with you. And if you cut the Pakistani in peaces who sold cigarettes in your part of the town, then that's a rational thing to do to defend your trafficking revenues and you can be perfectly mentally sane. So what does the crime tell you about the mental state? Nothing.

What about women who have an abortion? Are they mentally insane in countries where that is illegal, but sane where it is legal? What about citizens of the German Democratic Republic who illegally fleed their country? Were they insane? That's nonsense.

Criminality and mental sanity are two completely different concepts.

Originally posted by roberto blanco:

If you're so convinced that criminality is a desease why don't you show us where it is listed in the ICD-10? Or when it isn't (and it isn't) then tell us why you think you know better than the WHO.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And if you cut the Pakistani in peaces who sold cigarettes in your part of the town, then that's a rational thing to do to defend your trafficking revenues and you can be perfectly mentally sane.

LOL. no, that's hardly a "rational" thing to do. you might not have to be completely insane, but i would recon you are not the most "mentally" balanced person in the world to do something like that.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
What about women who have an abortion? Are they mentally insane in countries where that is illegal, but sane where it is legal?

errr...where did i say that everybody who commits a crime is "insane"? dude, you really have no ability to follow an argument.

people who commit "evil" acts (which in most parts of the world also constitute criminal behavior, i.e. rape, murder etc.) are never, i repeat NEVER mentally balanced/and or completely physically healthy.

do you actually consider everybody who breaks the law "evil"?