Ten oz
-
Joined
Posts posted by Ten oz
-
-
On 7/25/2020 at 10:13 PM, nec209 said:
I know there is not much information out there and there is lot of talk but not any hardcore science. But the theory why some people do crime and not other people is their brain yes the way their brain is wired and well some other people say chemical imbalance problem that these people have well really hard time to control his or her own self.
And there seem to be this debate among people that some people say low IQ and other people say chemical imbalance. But is there well any agreement among doctors and scientist today?
And well people who are poor may well steal or go around asking people for money at the 711 they are not normally violent or have hard time controlling his or her own emotion and pulled out gun, shoot some one or fight some one because you said some thing or looked at the person the wrong way or road rage or some one cheating on the lover.
If it is the way their brain is because of the way their brain is wired or a chemical imbalance are they really responsible or because of low IQ?
Unless the person did not take his or her meds to me normal are they responsible for such crimes?
You did not make an attempt to define crime. What is or is not a crime varies by locality. That said there are studies that look at the impact exposure to violence (many forms of violence are criminal throughout the world) has on the brain as it develops. Exposing a child to violence does impact brain development, increases adult health risks, and increase the likelihood the child with be violent.
Witnessing domestic violence as a child limits said child's attachment to parents and is associated with lower IQ. HERE
Another study links violence exposure at a young age to inflammatory issues than lead to increased health risks from cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and dementia, HERE
And of course exposure to violence at a child increase ones likelihood of being incarcerated as an adult. HERE.
On 7/26/2020 at 4:23 PM, nec209 said:I guess you need tools to show there is brain damage or some thing wrong with their brain than other people their brain or a chemical imbalance problem.
The problem is the critics that say this is just theory and there is no science proof. Well why because if there is no brain damage and there is nothing wrong with their brain it is the same as other people their brain the brain is not wired wrong and no chemical imbalance than it comes down to other things that may be the cause of crime.
If it is because of social issues and not psychology than people are going to be less empathy to the criminal.
That if there is chemical imbalance or brain is well different it is beyond the person control and the person needs to take meds to not do crime.
But I don’t think psychology gone that far to day say this today or psychology is that advance to day to say this so in the end this is just theories floating around.
In some country it is a crime to be gay. Throughout much of the world until recently it was a crime to marry someone outside ones race. There are and or have been crimes against premarital intercourse, drawing images of God, etc, etc, etc. I would imagine for each type of crime much debate could be had about whether or not chemical imbalances at a play and whether or not medical is appropriate or could be success in altering the behavior. That is why a specific definition is need for crime.
Does merely labeling something a crime reduce empathy for said behavior? Look at addiction. In the U.S. it is legal to drink Alcohol. As such society is fairly tolerate of people with varying degrees of Alcoholism. Provided one gets treated being an alcoholic doesn't hold one back from opportunities (employment, financing, security clearances, etc) Yet here is the U.S. narcotics are illegal. A history of narcotics addiction will hold one back from opportunity.
-
1 hour ago, 8link48 said:
Here in America (Especially in the deep south) we take pride in our guns and it is almost a way of life to have shot a gun at least once in your life here. Even though the idea of fighting back with our guns is the excuse we use, I believe its just a way of life that we're just trying to protect.
Protection of that tradition is going too far currently. The inability to even study the issue is nonsensical.
-
Quote
Every year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues an estimate of the number of people nonfatally injured by guns, but even by the agency’s own standards, its recent numbers may not be trustworthy. This year’s estimate is less reliable than ever.
According to the CDC’s most recent figures, somewhere between 31,000 and 236,000 people were injured by guns in 2017. That range, which represents the confidence interval — the high and low ends of a range of estimates that probably contains the real number, whatever that number is — is almost four times wider than the one given in the agency’s 2001 estimate. Link
Gun Control is already a complicated enough issue to tackle without the data being corrupted. At a minimum regardless of how one feels about Gun Control quality data should be something we all agree on?
QuoteIn United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]
The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC. Link
-
On 3/8/2019 at 11:20 AM, StringJunky said:
FB's like heroin: addictive and bad for you. All you are to FB is data and dollars.
I have FB for work purposes but don't find it all that entertaining. I have read that for some it is highly addictive but only loosely understand that appeal.
FB does have original programming now, Link. I haven't seen any of it yet though.
-
4 hours ago, koti said:
Wow, I watched the first episode of „The Orville” and got hooked not the Expanse of which I watched a couple episodes a year ago and concluded they were slow. Seems I might have been sleeping already yesterdayafter all.
I was so sure I would like the Expanse I bought the first season on iTunes but then watched the first 3 episodes gave up and have never finished the first season. Thomas Jane's character walking around the future like a 50's era PI wasn't working for me. I have been told by many that the show got better but it is such a huge investment of time I have never gotten back to it.
-
4 hours ago, beecee said:
Pine Gap was excellent, although I have not seen the other one.
I am a big fan of the TV show Fringe. It starred Anna Torv. Secret City is the first thing I had seen Anna Torv in since Fringe ended. Like Pine Gap the show Secret City is a political thriller.
The surprising thing about Pine Gap to me is how much I enjoyed the romance between the two intelligence analysis. Fairly standard stuff but the performances and simple writing made it feel authentic. At times their dilemmas bordered on juvenile but it never felt forced. I always sympathized with the IT tech who was trying to help the homeless girl. The show did a good just keeping that clean while at the same time acknowledging that often in life Auch relationships aren't clean.
-
2 hours ago, beecee said:
TV at this time, at least in my country has gone totally bonkers with the screens flooded with so called nonsensical "reality TV", from cooking shows, to getting married to others you have just met. I have a great collection of movies though and Netflix and Stan to escape such nonsensical falsities as these so called reality shows.
I recently watch two Australian series Secret City and Pine Gap . I enjoyed both and hope they get follow ups.
-
On 2/12/2019 at 2:25 PM, ALine said:
So like an equipment renting service. Would I need to make sure that each one of those pieces of equipment be insured?
That would depend on how you set up your business. If you were renting lab/shop space to include equipment you'd probably be able to insure the business a d then would have various types of liability clauses for specific pieces of equipment.
In my opinion it would be difficult to set up a work area with all the necessary tools for multiple disciplines. So you'd need to figure out what type of projects you'd be supporting. Looking to see what techincal schools are in the area might be a good place to start. It would give you an idea of what type of shops may already exist in your area.
-
@ALine unfortunately businesses exist to make money. Helping to develop ideas is admirable but it is not a tried and true business model. If you are truly interested in doing this as a business and not philanthropy I recommend identifying how you'd make money and extrapolate on that.
I assume when you say provide the space and resources you mean a workshop facility stocked with tools? If so it seems your business would be to rent out such a facility? It isn't a terrible idea. From food trucks renting commercial kitchens for food prep to Airbnb sharing is a growing business segment. I recommend identifying what tools people need they might not other wise have easy access to. Obvious stuff that comes to my mind are pneumatic tools, sandblaster, laser engravers, welding stations, hazmat waste storage and disposal, and etc.
Then you need to figure out whether you are charging by the hour, day, week, or etc.
-
13 murdered in another mass shooting. After the mass shootings in Last Vegas there was a lot of optimism regarding the possibility of moderate changes to the law regarding firearm modifications. Joke was on those of us you would like to see gun control. No proposals went anywhere. At this point I no longer blame the NRA. At this point the majority of the nation is responsible. As a nation we accept it.
-
-
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:
It looks like to me that he takes aim, then thinks differently, evidenced by lifting up the gun up before firing as a warning shot instead
Why shoot at all? The kid clearly saw the rifle, was running away, and had not appeared to be doing anything suspicious prior to that point.
-
Video was released of a many attempting to shoot a teenager who made the life threatening mistake of knocking on a door to ask for directions, Here. Fortunately the shooter was charged we'll have to wait and see if a jury will find him guilty.
-
@Commander imprisoning journalists and assaulting/killing activists is wrong and no govt should oppress their citizens that way. You can simply state as much, as I just have, and we can discuss it. When you copy and paste the words of others it makes it unclear what you wish to discuss. What are your personal insights on this issue?
-
Edited by Ten oz
49 minutes ago, mistermack said:That's true, but it's not the full picture. They have been observed and studied from a distance, and landing parties have had a look around deserted villages, where the residents have melted away into the forest, and concluded that they don't know how to start fires, and wait for lightning strikes, and do their best to keep a fire going following that. Presumably local fishermen can tell when fire is in use, and note periods when there is no signs of it. If you see no sign of smoke for long periods, and then plenty of it following a lightning storm, then that would be pretty strong evidence.
The Expeditions in the 1880's and 1967 found the same individual abandoned village. It is unclear if that village is used, how often, by how many people, or for what. Certainly not enough information to make any definitive statements about them. Smoke has been been observed as has light at night. So it is strongly believed they use fire. The source of fire and extent of use simply is not known. When M.V. Portman first found and abducted a small group (2 older adults and 4 children) in the 1880's next to nothing was learned. The abductees spoke a language which could not be deciphered, weren't discovered in or near a village far are Portman could tell, and quickly became deathly ill. Any conclusions one would attempt to make is purely guesswork.
-
22 hours ago, mistermack said:
There is a tribe alive today, on Sentinel Island, near India, that is so isolated they've never had close contact with modern people. They don't know how to make fire, and just wait till a natural fire starts, and keep it going. If it goes out, they have to wait for another lightning strike. From what I've read, making fire from friction or flint/iron is a very recent development, and before that, all humans did what the Sentinelese do.
It is not known whether or not they know how to make fire. Contact with the Sentinelese has repeatedly failed. Nothing is definitively known about them. It isn't even know what the size of their population is. No outside people have spoken with them or observed them do anything other than shoot arrows. It isn't even known if they have a primary village somewhere on the island or several outposts spreed out across it.
-
40 minutes ago, mistermack said:
Baboons are hunter gatherers, and are very successful at it. While they are highly intelligent compared to most animals, they don't compare to us. On the other hand the males are well armed, and they are much more nimble and fast than humans, so that compensates.
Baboons are significantly stronger physically than humans. A baboon could tear a human apart. Also they have fur and the ability to climb/forgage places human cannot. A human with those physical advantageous could survive with a lot less intelligence.
48 minutes ago, mistermack said:With humans, it's inventions that have changed our fortunes over the last 5,000 years. In today's climate, inventions come in a steady stream, and we are used to it. But before 5,000 years ago, people hardly invented at all. They just did what their parents did. Generation after generation. You get whole eras, that are characterised by a particular way of making a flint spear point, as in the Clovis people. Or a particular clay vessel, as in the Beaker people. Nothing changed in the designs for thousands of years.
I suspect fire was our great catalyst and that was hundreds of thousands of years back.
-
11 minutes ago, mistermack said:
There is no accepted theory for the level of intelligence of ancestral humans. It has to be entirely guesswork and opinion. A lot of people go by the inferred lifestyle, judging by the quality of tools and building etc but really, that's down to culture. Even today, there are hunter gatherers living who build nothing out of stone etc, who's lives are hardly different at all from people living a million years ago. And yet they have fully modern brains, capable of the highest levels of modern learning and achievement.
I think many people underestimate the amount of intelligence it requires to live as a hunter gatherer. Humans do not have fur, claws, great night vision, and etc. We lack the physical ability of our predator peers like Bears and Cougars. The average person today would die from some combination of dehydration, hunger, infection, and exposure inside a couple weeks if left on their own in a natural environment. The fact early humans thrived in the locations they did at all speaks to have intelligent they were.
-
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:
have to disagree here. I think Russian influence made the difference in both the Brexit vote and the US presidential election. Both were just that close, and whether or not the feelings were present is immaterial. Those feelings were exploited by Putin's troll farms and pro-authoritarian/anti-immigrant media campaigns with the intent to disrupt and skew
I don't think the vote even needs to have been close for it to matter. 19 members of Trump's campaign have been already been indicted, 5 pled already guilty, Facebook's CEO already testified that 70 million users were impacted, Cambridge Analytica employee already testified that discouraging people from voting was part of their statedgy, voting machines were hacked, and Trump got 3 million less votes. Clearly there was illegality. Incredible amounts of money was illegally. In my opinion there is just no way so many risk and pay so much for something that doesn't demonstrably have an impact.
People who can win fair and square don'tcheat and conversely those who cheat don't win fair and square.
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:As is your prerogative.
When cheaters win and it is discovered they cheated they should be disqualified. In the Olympics when an athlete tests positive for drugs they are disqualifed. Who cares how they could have done without the drugs? Arguing that they would have won without drugs is totally superfluous. If they could have won clean they should have been clean. In lieu of cheating they won cheating. It is a simple concept.
-
3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
Whether it was bankrolled or not, the desire was there for a referendum and that's the point I'm trying to make.... Russia didn't change anything. It was going to happen and PM David Cameron made it happen. Cameron was Conservative.
If money and messaging in politics didn't have an impact campaigns wouldn't spend billions. Of course it had an impact. We will never empirically know how big but I don;t see any successful campaigns forgoing money because they don't think it helps.
-
16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
Russia has nothing to do with the Brexit result. That's been gradually happening for decades. As far as regime change goes, I think that it is current wisdom is that it's not a good idea; change must occur from within. Iraq and Libya are sobering lessons
From what I have read Russia is believed to have help bankrolled the push for the referendum.
Quote(CNN)As the largest backer of the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union, Arron Banks rejoiced in being called one of the "Bad Boys of Brexit." Now the UK's National Crime Agency is investigating his financial support for the campaign and his contacts with Russian officials, according to three sources familiar with the probe.
The agency recently received an extensive archive of Banks' emails and other documents, the sources say, which include descriptions of meetings with Russian diplomats and possible business opportunities in Russia.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/04/uk/uk-brexit-russia-links-arron-banks-intl/index.html
QuoteLONDON — Arron Banks, a British financier who bankrolled the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, has long bragged about his “boozy six-hour lunch” with the Russian ambassador eight months before the vote.
While Mr. Banks was spending more than eight million British pounds to promote a break with the European Union — an outcome the Russians eagerly hoped for — his contacts at the Russian Embassy in London were opening the door to at least three potentially lucrative investment opportunities in Russian-owned gold or diamond mines.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/world/europe/russia-britain-brexit-arron-banks.html
-
23 hours ago, StringJunky said:
The Republicans may deny these people are part of them but I see them as living caricatures of mainstream Republican policy. They represent how their policies would manifest in the end if not obstructed... not pretty.
The issue is bigger than the Republican party. Russia is using pro conservatives pro nationalism propaganda to shift right leaning people toward authoritarianism in the western world. We saw it with Brexit, see it with Trump, and we see people like Assad and Jong-un being accepted as leaders globally when just a couple years ago it was the united opinion of the U.S. & EU that both had to go.
-
-
Even when listing every excuse he can think of the Texas Lt. Gov. refuses that guns themselves might part part of the problem.
QuotePatrick listed off a long list of reasons that led to Friday's shooting, including violent video games, the elimination of religion from public schools, abortion, the breakdown of families, unarmed teachers and the design of schools that includes too many entrances. But he stressed that guns were not to blame, explaining that they are "part of who we are as a nation."
Are people that do crime really responsible?
in Psychiatry and Psychology
True. I think the OP made a mistake framing their question around crime. I think what they were trying to ask is more centered around which behaviors are beyond vs within our control. I may be able to control whether or not I initiate the use of alcohol but my genetics will possibly determine addiction.