Drakes

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

You remind me of another member we had a few years back, who continuously  bragged about his stock portfolio.
He crashed and burned very quickly.

Are you really participating/contributing  in the discussion if you post cryptic comments, then refuse to clarify when politely asked ?

What part of my position do you politely want clarified?

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

It's a good thing most of us ignore your 'generally disagreeable' position, because it's as clear as mud.

Still my muddy position consist of Apple, Google, Netflix, Raytheon and about 800 other stocks.

14 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I would simply like to understand the point you are making. At present it is not clear. Please state your position clearly, because at present I have little or no idea what it is, other than, apparently, being generally disagreeable. You state society is not to blame, but also imply it is to blame.

Also note, I have expressed no position whatsoever on the thread topic. My couple of posts have been directed solely at attempting to understand your position. So please don't assign me imaginary motives conjured out of your own psyche.

I did state my position clearly, your total inability to comprehend is not my problem.  

Might be due to the alcohol

I love shrinking shrinks

8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.

 

 

Duh, do you want cars banned because idiots get drunk and crash?  If there were no cars there would be no drunk drivers

Are you an alcoholic or just a fed doing a stress test on yourself

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like saying, hay-fever is due to the number of people wantonly breathing in pollen.

Nope as alcohol is consumed by choice.

Very poor analogy

8 hours ago, Area54 said:

So, you are arguing society is to blame, by providing the alcohol? That seems to run counter to your earlier position. I am confused.

Using the same logic you would appear to agree that responsibility for the use of guns in violent crimes is not down to the gunmen, but to the existence of many responsible gun owners and the gun industry that equips them. That thought would also seem to run counter to your bumper sticker position.

Nope society is not to blame because 99 percent of alcohol users do not become addicted.  See all you are focusing on are the problems and not the larger picture, if there was no alcohol idiots would still sniff glue

On 7/26/2020 at 10:50 PM, MigL said:

There is a certain simplistic truth to that statement.
( I did not downvote )

We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices.
The OP seems to believe a 'chemical imbalance' absolves the perpetrator of a crime from responsibility.
As an example, drunkenness is a temporary 'chemical imbalance' which affects judgement; are we going to absolve drunk drivers who kill others of responsibility ? I don't think anyone here would support that.
Even if you propose that the driver had previously made the choice to drink and drive, the counterargument is that alcoholism is a recognised disease, so he/she is still not responsible for their actions.
So where do you draw the line of accountability ?

Society has no choice but to consider most to have free will and to be responsible for their actions.
So, if you choose to steal ( and possibly hurt others in the process ), instead of making do with what you have, asking for government assistance, or even begging, because you are hungry ( or greedy ), you have made your choice, and are held accountable by society.

While drunkenness is a temporary condition alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease.  This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption 

20 hours ago, 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?  

Do all poor people steal?

Answer NO

Case closed

If you can't do the time, do not do the crime

On 6/20/2020 at 5:42 AM, greatscams said:

I finished reading a Dan Brown book called Inferno, in which a madman decides to create and propagate a human created virus that targets human's reproductive system and renders them sterile through the water system in Istanbul. Is creating such a virus possible with modern day understanding of genetic engineering, and how effective would such a virus be? Assuming its spread to be as much as of the current pandemic, how much could the virus decrease the population increase rate?

Not sure but I am 100 percent sure that there are already vaccines that target reproduction