Coral Rhedd

I think parents want their children to have every possible advantage if they are honest with themselves. I do think that it only makes sense to manipulate those things that we can agree are a serious disadvantage to all children. But can we agree? For instance, many would think that children would be happier and the world a better place if there were no Downs Syndrome. My understanding is that this can be tested for but that it is not quite possible to determine the extent of the impairment. Also, many parents of children with Downs Syndrome would consider that aborting such a child is wrong. Bear with me here: They see it as a form of discrimination. Now take appearance. Anyone who does not think beauty is an enormous advantage, has been living in a cave. Why pretend that it is somehow shallow to manipulate your potential child's genes to make them look good? Looking good bestows a social and economic advantage. The whole thing is going to be an ethical can of worms. I think we should have a right -- all of us -- to improve our children's health and advantages. If having money is a factor for enjoying this advantage, then the whole notion of justice, fair play, and equality of opportunity is at risk. How much do we want to give up in order to give our children the best possible start in life? Answers to these questions will utterly reshape our governments, our societies, and our neighborhoods.

Are you talking about stigma? Do you mean that sort of deliberate isolating behavior that is like shunning because someone is different? To be really honest' date=' I am not sure it is that easy to know what is natural and normal. Maybe for some people . . . I am not close enough to normal to have a clear picture. I've had an interesting life. I think feelings of alienation are a part of being human. Maybe I should have never read Camus. I suppose the answer would be that families or society do not accept them. I don't offer a justification. I am just one person and not "society." I used to be a job coach and I worked with mentally retarded young people -- which is some what different from mental illness, but there is still a stigma attached to it. Hmmm. I don't feel like I am arguing so much as I am trying to understand. If you cannot enter someone else's world, it is not the same thing as deliberately isolating them. It could simply be a failure of the imagination rather than a failure of compassion. Also, I have noticed people resist dealing with problems that frighten them. I don't disagree with you that society can create isolation. Of course it can. But it doesn't cause all mental diseases. I believe some mental illness will happen without that societal trigger. Schizophrenia seems to be one of them. Autism may be one of them. I know that most people think Bipolar Disorder is highly heritable but it is comorbid with PTSD so often that I begin to have some doubt. At this point, I don't feel that pedophilia is a disease that can happen without a trigger. I think it is more likely that pedophiles are made, not born. Not. I don't have to argue for that because I never denied that society can make people feel inhuman. Of course it can. And it can make some people feel more inhuman that others. But is that causal? Which comes first? If someone doesn't fit by being different in some marked way, then they can be isolated long before any illness manifests itself. Do you wish to equate "differentness" with illness? Let us say that someone begins displaying schizotypal behavior at 17. Does that mean that any past isolation that person experienced must be view as causal. In order for us to proceed to any understanding, shouldn't you describe specifically some of the isolating behaviors that our society displays that you feel causes mental illness. Well actually it is funny. You are the person who says you have autism and I think you are trying to make me feel something, so I keep running to my dictionary to avoid dealing with this. Call it an inadequate defense mechanism if you like. The point is that I am the one taking you seriously enough to respond to your POV. So define the type! Offer some examples. No one understands better than I do that I do not fit very well in todays fast-paced, and highly structured and time-driven world. How am I going to make society slow down? That's why I take medication to keep up. I would probably be unemployed if I didn't. Do I like taking Adderall? Hell no! I rather leave it to the meth freaks. Do I have a choice? Not really. Welfare and disability are not what I choose to live on. You trumped me! I don't even know what UP is. But I am just arrogant enough to quibble with a couple of your diagnoses. You may be on the Autism Spectrum but you have Asperger's do you not? Second, you either have a Schizophrenia or you don't. (You must be in your twenties.) How can you possibly say for sure it is on the horizon? Why would you want to borrow such trouble? You probably see that last paragraph of mine as isolating.

I would feel fine -- especially if that were an official role for the advocate. It is one the roles of the victim advocate to support the victim/the family of the victim in court. This is part of the law in most states. Victim advocates are both paid and volunteer staff of sheriff's departments, police departments, and prosecutor's offices all over this nation. If the advocate is there in an official capacity and obeys the rules of the court, then the judge cannot -- without some major reason -- evict him. This is part of law. BTW, that is one very hypothetical victim advocate you have constructed. Usually their role is incredibly low key. To become a public figure like that would take extraordinary circumstances. The public generally has little fascination with victims and their families -- and, by extension, victim advocates. Victim advocates educate the community, train others to be supportive of the needs of victims, support victims and their families, advise on the legal system and rights and available funds, and interface with other agencies. They do not directly speak to the defendant's guilt or innocence inside the court and they are rarely vocal about individual cases. As a victim advocate, the most difficult part of my role is when victims or their families ask me why a crime occurred. What they really mean is "Why me?" or "Why my loved one?" One tries to be comforting, but the simple fact is that these things happen. They are often quite random and it is impossible for a normal person to fathom some crimes and some criminals. (Court-Appointed Special Advocate's for children or Guardian Ad Litems have a different role that does not apply in the case we are discussing.)

I think it is a safe bet that the intent of the family was threefold: 1. To memorialize the victim. 2. To gain the press to their side. 3. To influence the trial. Emotions can run very high and most often the families have already made a decision that the defendant is indeed guilty. They can generally express these feelings to their heart's content outside the context of the courtroom. What they express -- even whether or not they contain their emotions -- is under the power of the judge inside the courtroom. As human beings the family was not doing anything improper. The judge alone decides what they may do -- and even wear -- inside the courtroom. That is why I have not said that I can know exactly what was in the minds of family members. Perhaps the buttons were a plea for justice. It is impossible to know without interviewing each of them personally what their specific motives were. In the past, survivors of victims (who are also victims) had no voice in the courtroom. This has changed in recognition of the fact that they too suffer and that they can make a contribution to the jurors' understanding in the penalty phase of the trial.

Nice in theory, but justice is often manipulated. And the more money one has, the easier it is to manipulate it. In my country the four basic freedoms are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. These are in what is called The First Amendment to the Constitution. I believe they are the backbone of all American freedom and I hold absolutely nothing above them. We definitely differ here.

The nice thing about the English language (or probably any language) is flexibility. You have decided that isolation should be defined your particular way. Look in an adequate dictionary and you will find otherwise. To me isolation would mean not being able to contact my daughter for a couple of weeks. To others, it might mean going to the movies alone. Surely you must see that your definition of isolation necessitates that people still make evaluations about what makes them feel human or not. As I do yours. In fact a missed your responses in a previous thread. Not denying. Just forgetful. I have ADD. I reread and just want to clarify that you see a deficient environment as one that does not meet a person's needs. To also clarify: You see parents as often being unresponsive to the needs of their children. Do you also see cultures as not being responsive to the needs of children?

I think it is interesting that no one thus so far has found it that interesting. I suspect that the jury did not find it that interesting either -- unless there are some indications to the contrary. Families of victims (who are not going to be witnesses) are allowed to sit in the court room. Sometimes they tear up. As long as they are not making a scene, judges generally allow them to remain. It is unlikely that the jury would not know they exist or be able to speculate upon their feelings. If jury members were focused upon such buttons rather than the evidence at hand, they would be very poor jury members indeed. I would not even see it as a reason to take the trial more seriously. There are no greater or lesser victims. I would consider the evidence as presented in trial. That would include the demeanor of the witnesses. That would not include the demeanor or apparel of the audience. I liked the old movie better.

No, I am not that sophisticated. Could you define a depleted environment? Or if that question requires too broad an answer, could you give an example of a depleted environment that might lead to the impacted person being a sex offender against children?

Here's a thread with a device that will help rebalance you: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=153278#post153278

I support victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of a trial. The sentencing phase is different in some states than the part that determines guilt or innocence. I know of no state in the U.S.that permits such statements prior to the jurors deliberations upon the defendant's guilt or innocence. If you know of such a state, which one?

Ramin, can you expand a bit upon your last sentence? I am not certain I understand what you mean.

One presumes the poor are genetically inferior only if money is how you keep score to determine genetic superiority.

Yes, it is possible to greatly reduce the "behavior" but allowing the person who receives the drug to be less impulsive and driven about sex. It is not as decisive as actual castration, but it has created some controversies. You can read about it here: http://www.heretical.com/money/soffence.html

A sense of wonder and joy sustained through life! Children often seem to start out with this but they often lose it somewhere along the way. This is so tragic. The reason: I would want my child to be happy and an abiding fascination for life creates happiness. I would support "designer babies" with some limitations. The first should be that everyone who wants to be a parent (and I hope a worthy parent) could avail themselves of the technology. However, I can imagine a downside. Suppose aggression correlated with success? Do we really need more aggressive people?

How true! Another thing (besides common sense ) that IQ doesn't adequately measure is motivation. I have known many smart losers, sad to say. If I were to have to choose between a high IQ with mediocre health and an average IQ with excellent health, I would choose the latter. If I had to choose between being a depressive with a high IQ or a happy optimist with an average IQ, I would choose the latter. I think good health and a good attitude must also correlate with success.

Lance, what is this relevant to????? I haven't made any definitive statements about this because I am not sure what causes school violence. You didn't actually read the link about scalping did you?

357, but it kicks!