iNow

No, and already covered this in this thread about 4 days ago:

Depends on how we choose to interpret ability to offer informed consent. As a general rule, we assume the child is not capable of consenting in an informed way

No, and there must admittedly be some nuance involved here. Despite my strong pushback against MigL, I acknowledge my previous several posts inaccurately imply a black and white binary state on this issue of violence. Instead, it's a fine line. Apologies in advance for the long post... I'll work to tighten up my thoughts on this as we proceed... Protests against unfairness in the system should be peaceful. Calling attention to asymmetries in policing and imprisonment and economic inequity itself should nearly always be peaceful, and exceptions rare. I don't support destruction of private property or harm to individuals and neighbors. We gain allies in the fight on principle when we express ourselves peacefully and on the merits, and we lose allies when pockets of violence arise and absorb all of the attention. The violent actions of the tiny few outliers wind up overshadowing the actions of the great many. The most important messages of the cause are lost amid the shade cast by the bright light of fires in our streets and violence in our cities. We keep seeing here even at SFN as we spend page upon page upon page talking about the 4 people who set a fire in Portland or Seattle instead of the 4 Million people who did not and who were calling attention to their just cause. Simply: I'm against violence for reasons of principle, morality, AND strategy. When we see violence in things like the George Floyd protests, it tends to be conducted against innocent targets... against private property and personal businesses which have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause or the systemic issues at play. It harms those who are not involved and does nothing to improve the situation. It's not focused in a way that will drive the change we seek. It simply creates easy enemies and caricatures for simplistic attack by "the other side." This is also why we saw so many false flag operations with police and rightwing nationalists pretending to be BLM setting fires and breaking windows... so many ridiculous fear-stoking claims about the millions of antifa... they knew it would deteriorate support for the cause and distract/derail us from the more important conversation. They were right, and that's exactly what happened. Even here... Everyone should welcome protest that drives change and pushes for police accountability, but that protest should NOT involve setting cars on fire in peoples driveways or breaking the windows at the local gas station or Target supercenter. I can empathize with the anger felt by those doing these things, but I don't condone their actions. Both can be true at once, and this is the point I've been trying (and failing) to convey here throughout. Likewise... Protests against government should also be peaceful whenever possible. I don't support storming the halls of our congress with zip ties, tazers, and shouts that we should hang elected officials in the gallows just erected 100 feet away on the capitol lawn. By all means, express your protest peacefully... make the case about election fraud, and do so with evidence. Gain the hearts and minds of those who disagree with you... make your case in court... but don't engage in vigilantism or mob "justice" like a bunch of rabid dogs. You asked me about American Revolution, and I will say peaceful attempts WERE made... for decades. Even the Declaration of Independence itself was peaceful. It was only after the King sent troops in response to it that the peace was broken. One can argue that was a similar insurrection and that we'd not have a country without it. That's fair. There surely are times when violence is in order once all other peaceful options are exhausted. Peaceful options had not, however, been exhausted with BLM. The peaceful approaches were the overwhelmingly majority. The violence was marginal at best and is being exaggerated... That's the point. What constitutes an appropriate response is also contingent on how the government responds to said peaceful protest. If the defenders of an unjust government use violence to suppress peaceful protest or to imprison those with whom they disagree (like the thousands of Navalny supporters Putin just arrested in Russia this weekend, for example), then perhaps violence is needed, but it still IMO must be tied to an underlying cause which is itself just and fair and which cannot be more successfully addressed by other means. When the government seeks to suppress peaceful protestors, that is perhaps when it is time to look to the words of founders like Thomas Paine who said, "when struggling to defend rights against tyranny, it is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms." ... but not before. At the end of the day, what we consider violent and acceptable is subjective. I don't advocate or support it in the vast majority of cases. There will be exceptions, though. For me, BLM was NOT one of those exceptions. I felt peaceful protest was used 99.9% of the time, and that the movement would have been better received and more effective had that 0.01% not occurred. These threads at SFN are evidence enough of this... Look at how people perceive it. Look at how I'm being misinterpreted as supporting violence because I agree with their cause. Look at how far away we all are from discussing the actual issues which needs to be addressed. For these and other reasons, I don't support violence, even though across the vast chapters in the book of history I'm sure we can find a handful of exceptions that we agree seem to warrant it. tl;dr: Civic resistance is sometimes justified, and that those who oppose injustice and tyranny are sometimes permitted violence in self-defense. To be clear, this isn’t the same as suggesting that protesters ought to resort to arms. Nor do I, and I appreciate you calling me out on it.

The parents do, which would imply that parents should also be able to decide whether or not to lobotomize their children with psychopathic traits. This leads us to a conclusion that the benefits and safety of the procedure involved must outweigh the risks and probability of failure. Vaccines when proven safe have clearly demonstrated benefits to both the child and to society at large. The vaccines must first, however, be shown to be safe AND effective. What is the safe AND effective method of "curing" psychopathy? There isn't one, hence the analogy shows its limits lack of applicability.

I really don't know what to tell you at this point, mate. I'm explicitly stating that violence on either side is wrong and to be avoided. Then in response, you're claiming I support violence so long as it's for a cause I also support. That is plainly untrue. It is false. I have shared specific quotes of myself stating without equivocation that violence is wrong. As I know you're not a troll and are not likely misinterpreting me on purpose, I'm left only to conclude that you have a serious bias against my words and a blind spot in your understanding. You are misinterpreting and misrepresenting my stance. You are then arguing against that misrepresentation. It's a classic strawman, even if guided by good intentions and sincere beliefs. Please stop doing that. It's now been 3 weeks since the last time you levelled these false claims against me in this very thread. Shall I look for this false claim to reappear 3 weeks from now around Valentines Day? Just wondering how long it will be before I have to YET AGAIN clarify my stance that we are aligned about peaceful protests being okay and that we are also aligned that violence has no place in it.

Really? Where did I do that, exactly? You see, I ask because I recall doing EXACTLY the opposite. Let’s check the game tape and send this one to the booth: Yep. Exactly the opposite of what you claim. I’m gonna flag you for roughing the poster, penalize you 20 yards, and give you a loss of down. Just don’t let it happen again. I’m confident that my writing is clear, my points unambiguous, and that one must try very hard to twist my words into what you’re currently asserting.

Thanks for letting me live rent free inside your head for so long

I’m unsure where the spit should start, but feel a thread split is needed to address this separate path of needlessly personal claims of hypocrisy and double standards. Reporting this post to request that

I’ll withhold comment until these clear copious examples and quotes arrive

Yes. Please do. I’ll wait

We can all agree that violence on either side is wrong and should be avoided. What we seemingly cannot agree upon is why so many feel the need to engage in whataboutism and mention a protest in favor of following our laws done in Portland with an insurrection on our democracy itself trying to dismantle our laws in Washington DC. Whether intentionally or not, this suggests an equivalence between the events which is false and which only distracts us from dealing with each separately, appropriately, and in accordance with our laws. Person A: Climate change is a major problem. Person B: What about covid?! That’s a problem, too. Me: Both are. They’re not equivalent. They’re not mutually exclusive. We must deal with both at once. Walk and chew bubble gum. Simply replace climate and covid with DC and Portland. This isn’t exactly rocket science.

One may voluntarily choose to hack their own brain, but one may not involuntarily hack the brain of another. This is a pretty simple and basic concept.

And now the Arizona GOPis moving forward with a censure of Doug Ducey, Cindy McCain, and Jeff Flake for not being sufficiently servile and obedient to Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/arizona-censure-flake-mccain-ducey.html

That was a favorite for me, too

^ *censure stoopid autocorrect. Promise I never type “ducking” either

Frank, based on what you've described here, is also not a psychopath. There are important differences between his experience and what the OP refers to. Let me ask this another way. What would a treatment or cure for psychopathy entail in your opinion?

^Diet Coke

Sounds downright tropical This individual likely lacks the capacity to offer informed consent for treatment, but treatment in this case is likely different than what it would take to “cure” psychopathy. Some sleep, a decent meal, a bit of therapy, possibly some well understood and extremely well tested meds... all reasonable rational approaches to treatment... not suggestions of “cure” which call to mind lobotomies.

The voters and republicans in state houses around the nation might not like that. Liz Cheney was unanimously censored by Wyoming for failing to represent them when voting in favor of impeachment last week.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/influence-psychiatric-symptoms-decisional-capacity-treatment-refusal/2017-05 One imagines they’d have to be EXTREMELY handicapped not to have capacity for deciding whether or not to cut out various pieces of their brain (surgically or chemically) or their personality. Yes

Zero republicans in the House voted for the first impeachment. 10 in the House voted in favor last week for the second one. I knew what you meant, though. My pedantry simply knows no bounds Text editor really really crapped the bed on this one. Was trying to quote this part ^

The error I see is with the underlying suggestion that there’s some binary state of mental processes: normal vs abnormal. This flawed foundation then jumps you into the next conclusion that the “typicals” should have the authority to involuntarily and forcibly change the “atypicals” without their consent. Beyond the failure to realize that we all exist along a spectrum (not in a binary state)...there’s the added issue of how this looks rather like an entry-level eugenics program. Master race and purity connotations abound. Bound feet also come to mind, how young girls had their feet broken to make the small. Genital mutilation and clitoral slicing, forced sterilization, and now this suggestion with psychopathy... Just because the object here is the mind and not the body doesn’t mean the outcome being proposed is any better.

Just to be pedantic, he’s already been impeached. Twice, by the House of Representatives. For those other things to come to pass, however, the Senate must convict. 67 votes are needed to do so. Only 50 of them are Democratic.