Insanity Plea

[Spartacus FPV]

What science have I opposed in any post of mine.

Well, lets start with your next sentence for example:

Theory is not proven science.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific THEORY. Its amazing how everytime you open your mouth you demonstrate your piss-poor understanding of science.

Real science doesn't claim as fact which has not been proven. Therefore you are the one who is opposed to science dear friend.

Non-Sequitor. First of all, "fact" isn't a scientific word. In science there are theories, laws, and hypotheses. You poorly educated sitting duck.

Secondly, the truth or falsity of your former claim (which happens to be false) has no bearing on the truth of the latter. Your logic simply doesn't follow.

"Durr, I don't hate science, you hate science."

 

[Noah's Hammer]

And so in your world a theory is a fact- right?

Like the once held THEORY of Spontaneous Generation.

Spontaneous Generation, or abiogenesis, ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduce by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances. This view went uncontradicted until after the middle of the 17th century, when the Italian physician and poet Francesco Redi disproved (1668) the prevailing notion that the maggots of flies were generated in putrefying meat exposed to air. In 1768, the Italian naturalist Lazzaro Spallanzani further showed that microorganism-containing solutions that were boiled and then sealed off would remain free of microorganisms thereafter; and in 1836 the German naturalist Theodor Schwann provided additional proof with still more meticulous experiments of this nature.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® Encyclopedia 2005 © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


I don't claim to be a genius but you sure make it obvious that you're not one either.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And so in your world a theory is a fact- right?

In my world? No, when using the word in a scientific context. Unlike a layperson's context, where "theory" can mean guess. See the distinction? I thought you wouldn't...

Like the once held THEORY of Spontaneous Generation.

Oh wow, people relying on evidence and the scientific method were wrong centuries ago. I guess we'd better throw out all the biological knowledge we have since accumulated, science is unreliable :roll:

I don't claim to be a genius but you sure make it obvious that you're not one either.

You're worse, you claim to know the will of god. You keep insisting that I am wrong, and yet you haven't proven me so. If I am no genius, where am I wrong? (Relating to something real, empirical, and verifiable; NOT something you believe to be true, something you can confirm)

 

[Noah's Hammer]

You haven't proven ME wrong. So what does that make you?

The point you totally missed about the theory of spontaneous generation is that a theory in the scientific world is not a matter of fact. It can and often is proven wrong. It is only a matter of fact in your make believe world of denial.

There is not one shred, not one single shred of real scientific evidence that does not coincide with Creation and the Bible.

And there is not one shred, not one single shred of scientific evidence that gives any definitive credence to the THEORY of evolution. If there was we would call it a law of science. Even the God-haters in the scientific community who are your prophets for your religion of atheism do not call it a law. It is a theory. Any intellegent person who is not hell bent on denying the existence of God for some deeply personal issues can tell the difference.

I hope that you will be more open before you learn the truth too late. I pray fervently to that effect.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

_____________________

GOD DOESN'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You haven't proven ME wrong. So what does that make you?

Oh I've proven you wrong on matters of science, Darwin, Natural Selection, and everything verifiable. I've told you the truth, I've quoted to you the truth. I'm not going to draw you a map to the Professor for the Public's Understanding of Science because you probably won't listen to him either. I've found with people like you, its best to just provide the truth, and if you disagree, you're just an idiot.

If you're saying that I haven't disproven the existence of god, so what? Is that supposed to be a compelling argument? I can't disprove unicorns either, that doesn't make them any more true.

The point you totally missed about the theory of spontaneous generation is that a theory in the scientific world is not a matter of fact. It can and often is proven wrong. It is only a matter of fact in your make believe world of denial.

... You obviously did not read what I wrote. You continue to think that just because bad science gets replaced by better science, current theories are invalid. This is simply bad logic that doesn't follow. I would try again to explain to you what it means to be a scientific theory, but I know my effort is wasted on you. You're not capable of scientific comprehension I have found.

There is not one shred, not one single shred of real scientific evidence that does not coincide with Creation and the Bible.

Is that a joke? Creationism insists that the earth is 6000 years old, carbon dating debunks this idiocy. We happen to know for a fact that this alleged date comes after the domestication of the dog. If you want to tell me that god made dogs before the earth... then Genesis is all f***ed up.

And there is not one shred, not one single shred of scientific evidence that gives any definitive credence to the THEORY of evolution. If there was we would call it a law of science.

Do I have to explain to you what a law is again?

Even the God-haters in the scientific community who are your prophets for your religion of atheism do not call it a law. It is a theory.

I guess I really do, they call it a theory ON PURPOSE. Let me ask you this, why do you call the scientific community god haters? That doesn't sound like the talk of a person who isn't anti-science:3oops:

Also, I'm curious as to why you think I would revere scientists as prophets, or that Atheism by definition could be considered a religion? What is the purpose of this intentional stupidity?

Any intellegent person who is not hell bent on denying the existence of God for some deeply personal issues can tell the difference.

Hell bent? On the contrary, the moment any of you comes at me with definitive proof of the existence of god, you will have won me over. Not only me, the whole of science. Christianity would instantaneously be a verifiable truth. You simply don't understand me, atheism, or science at all.

I hope that you will be more open before you learn the truth too late. I pray fervently to that effect.

Me, the one who wants to be proven wrong, needs to be more open? :rofl

You wouldn't know the first thing about truth, open-mindedness, reason, or what it means to be a skeptic.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

No one has refused to see. You have something to point out to me, then do so, and don't be surprised that when you point at nothing tangible, I see nothing tangible.

Please stop attempting to demonstrate scientific knowledge. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. (Honest Abe said that.)

 

[Noah's Hammer]

You haven't proven ME wrong. You can't cite a time you have.

If you're saying that I haven't disproven the existence of god, so what? Is that supposed to be a compelling argument? I can't disprove unicorns either, that doesn't make them any more true.

The evidence for the existence of God is every where around you even down to the air you breathe.

You've never seen your brain yet you believe you possess it because of a centralized nervous system in your body. Because we see creation we believe in God.

It really doesn't matter what you believe. For some reason almost as insane as your reason for denying the existence of God you might deny that a Black Mamba will bite and kill you if you pick it up by the tail. But your belief based on foolish denial and willfull ignorance will not change the fact that you will die before the sun sets after he bites you.

Fire burns whether you believe it or not. Poison kills whether you believe it or not. You will meet God whether you believe it or not.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:
Because that when they knew God they glorified Him not as God neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools...
Wherefore God also gave them up..."
Rom 1

 

[Noah's Hammer]

I think we have accidentally high-jacked this thread. I will move my last post to a thread more appropriate.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You haven't proven ME wrong. You can't cite a time you have.

Quite easily I can. You may not accept that you are wrong, but truth does not need your consent.

In post 50 you said that theories are not proven science. I immediately pointed out that the earth revolving around the sun is a scientific theory. Is this not proven?

You continued to show both contempt for science, and a misunderstanding of what a theory means in the scientific context. It doesn't mean a guess.

In post 51 I provided you with the scientific terminology and definitions of laws, hypotheses and theories in order for you to save yourself from future embarrassment. I now see that you're not concerned with that, or learning the proper use of the terminology.

That is one (of many) instances where you were wrong and I proved it. You may not accept it, but I cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.

Again, I know its not very persuasive, but with people like you, this is about as far as I go trying to engage you rationally. You pretty much give me no other choice but to suggest you pick up a Biology textbook.

The evidence for the existence of God is every where around you even down to the air you breathe.

And why do you suppose that everything is evidence for the existence of Yahweh, but not Allah, or Jupiter or any other god. Why your god?

 

[Dezaad]

You have stated that Murder is so irrational that it is inherently insane. Yep But, surely you are not saying that all Murderers fit the legal definition. Yes, I am Instead, you are saying that no Murderers and therefore, no Insane People, fit the above definition, correct? I cannot even fathom what this means, that seems like the complete opposite, and in my tired state, that seems to make no sense at all.

Here is the legal definition of insanity: [the state of being] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [one's] acts

Here is a definition that approximates your definition of insanity: engaging in egregiously irrational acts

In the quote, I asked you if you believe that all murderers fit the legal definition of insanity. You state that you do. The only conclusion that I can draw from your confirmation is that you believe the following statement:

"All murderers are in a state of being where they are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts." Do you agree with this statement?

I think that you must not, but I don't want to put 'words in your mouth', so I will defer to what you have apparently confirmed, and go from there.

If insanity means that a person is unable to comprehend that what they have done is wrong (see legal definition), then why would you hold them accountable? I can see holding someone accountable who wilfully discarded reason: who thereby irrationally concluded that they had a right to murder. But, not someone who doesn't even comprehend what they've done.

This is the distinction: One is unwilling to be rational, the other is incapable of being so. Yet you seem to want to hold them to the same moral standard. I will admit that both are mentally ill, but that admission does not mean we have to conclude that the quality of their illness the same. Simply put, the first one is not legally insane, the second one is.

 

[BodiSatva]

I will address this issue in greater detail later, I have to get going soon. BUT. I think I mentioned that I agree with the legal definition of Insanity, but I don't think that it encompasses all that is Insane. I said that I was re-writing the rules since the rules are not accurate in defining what is Insane.

Get back to you later Dezaad...

 

[hereyago]

insanity plea is a legit defense

 

[Spartacus FPV]

insanity plea is a legit defense

Okay... Hi and Welcome to DP. Do you have anything to backup that claim?

 

[BodiSatva]

insanity plea is a legit defense

Is that it?...

 

[BodiSatva]

Dezaad
"All murderers are in a state of being where they are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts." Do you agree with this statement?

Yes...

I think that you must not

I do...

I think that any person that murders another for any reason that you can fathom is, "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts".

If I go out and murder, or intentially kill, any person...though I am sane by any definition, I am actually Insane in reality for onoy an Insane person would be willing or capable of murder.

 

[Dezaad]

I do...

I think that any person that murders another for any reason that you can fathom is, "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts".

If I go out and murder, or intentially kill, any person...though I am sane by any definition, I am actually Insane in reality for onoy an Insane person would be willing or capable of murder.

You seem to be saying that only a person who was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts would be capable of murder. I disagree. I believe that people who are unwilling to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts are also capable of it. The prerequisite for murder is only that a person is convinced that what they are doing is correct, or at least permissible. People can reach that state through more than one path.

In any case, if you succeeded with your argument, all you would do is absolve all murderers of responsibility for their crimes. People who are unable to understand the meaning of what they are doing are not responsible for what they do, whether its all murderers or none.

Do you have any scientific backing for your assertion that all murderers are insane? What do you base your assertions on?

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Johnny Utah
Please move your bible talk somewhere more appropriate please.

Originally Posted by Noahs Hammer
I was unaware that the Bible is inappropiate anywhere- especially in a free society.

I think we have accidentally high-jacked this thread. I will move my last post to a thread more appropriate.

That is all.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Dezaad
In any case, if you succeeded with your argument, all you would do is absolve all murderers of responsibility for their crimes.

I disagree. I think that, according to his argument, this would make less people innocent or murder. It would take away their excuse. More that had been labeled insane would be relabeled as murderers.

 

[Dezaad]

I disagree. I think that, according to his argument, this would make less people innocent or murder. It would take away their excuse. More that had been labeled insane would be relabeled as murderers.

It doesn't take away their excuse. Defining every murderer as insane does not change the fact that people who are unable to appreciate the meaning of their acts are innocent of them.

Definition: He has agreed that the definition of an insane person is: someone who is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts.

1) People who are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts are innocent of their acts.

2) He has claimed that 'only an insane person' could murder, ( just a way of saying all murderers are insane).

Therefore 3) All 'murderers' are innocent.

The proportion of murderers who are insane changes nothing. It is irrelevant. Premise 1 is the place where Bodhi should direct his attack, and saying that all murderers fit the definition does nothing to further his argument.

The argument that most people make is:

1) People who are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts are innocent of their acts.

2) At least some murderers are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of their acts.

Therefore: 3) At least some murderers are innocent of their acts.

Bodhi changes the proportion of murderers who are insane. The 'excuse' portion of the insanity defense is in premise 1, and remains unaffected by argument over the proportion of murderers who are insane.

 

[Flea]

It seems to me though, that being unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts does not mean that they are innocent. You are the one applying that aspect.

See, I read it like this:

He has agreed that the definition of an insane person is: someone who is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts.

1) People who are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts are guilty of their acts because,

2) 'only an insane person' could murder, ( just a way of saying all murderers are insane).

Therefore 3) Since Only and Insane Person Could Murder and Insanity is not an excuse for innocence, all people that murder are guilty.

 

[Dezaad]

I read it like this:

He has agreed that the definition of an insane person is: someone who is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts.

1) People who are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts are guilty of their acts because,

2) 'only an insane person' could murder, ( just a way of saying all murderers are insane).

Therefore 3) Since Only and Insane Person Could Murder and Insanity is not an excuse for innocence, all people that murder are guilty.

To aid in thinking your argument through, you should arrange your argument like this:

2) 'only an insane person' could murder, ( just a way of saying all murderers are insane).

Therefore: 1) People who are unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts are guilty of their acts.

Therefore 3) Since Only and Insane Person Could Murder and Insanity is not an excuse for innocence, all people that murder are guilty

Your use of the word 'because' indicates that you want premise 2 to support premise 1, which can be restated as shown above, without a change in meaning. Premise 1, could be restated this way: "All people who are insane are still guilty of those acts". The definition of insane has only been replaced by the word itself. Now lets shorten premise 2 to take out the (redundant) restatements, which leaves "All murderers are insane". Now the argument reads:

2) All murderers are insane.

Therefore: 1) All insane people are {still} guilty of their acts.

Therefore: 3) Since All murderers are insane and insane people are still guilty of their acts, all people that murder are guilty

It should be clear to you that premise 2 does not compel anyone to believe premise 1. So, you have not helped Bodhi's argument at all, and are still left needing to direct your efforts to supporting Premise 1, which is essentially the same thing Bodhi must still do.

It seems to me though, that being unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts does not mean that they are innocent. You are the one applying that aspect.

No, I am not the one applying that aspect. That is the accepted view.

Some people try to say that murderers do not fit that definition of insanity, but I've never heard anyone try to say that people who do fit that definition are guilty. That is a much more difficult thing to argue. Bodhi has insisted on using the standard definition, and so he is compelled to make the difficult argument.

Lets examine just what we mean when we say that someone is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of their acts:

Unable to appreciate the nature and quality (of their acts): This is not a person who has deliberately ignored the meaning of the act they are performing, it is a person who is incapable of understanding that what they are doing will lead to death, or that death means that they have deprived someone of something valuable.

Unable to appreciate the wrongfulness (of their acts): This is a person who has been rendered incapable of knowing that their act is wrong. The might understand that their acts will lead to death and that death will deprive the victim of something exceedingly valuable but they are unable to see that it is wrong. For example, someone who believes that the voices they hear speaking to them are God, and that God is telling them the victim must be deprived of life. They have zero capacity to know that it is not God that is speaking to them, and zero capacity to decide that they should disobey God. There are other ways to be rendered incapable of moral thinking, but this is illustrative.

I think that most people find the mind that characterizes the second part of the definition incomprehensible. Due to its incomprehensibility, some of those people seem to think that it is impossible to truly be deprived of the ability to make moral decisions, and so they attack the insanity defense based on that. But this is not what Bodhi is doing. He accepts the definition, and still thinks the person is guilty. Korimyr accept the definition, accepts that the person is not guilty, but still thinks they should be euthanized (for the safety of society).

There are other creatures who are unable to comprehend the moral significance of what they are doing: Animals. But, we don't think of them as "guilty", precisely because they are unable.

 

[Flea]

Thank you for your help. The point that I am tryingto make, and maybe I am not being clear, is that premise 1 is Irrelevant to anything. So to me, it goes:

All insane people are as responsible for their acts as anybody else, since it is a given that to Murder is to be Insane and it is therefore irrelevant. Since All murderers are insane and insane people are still as guilty of their acts as anybody else committing any other crime is, all people that murder are therefore guilty and the Insanity Defense is moot.

 

[Dezaad]

Thank you for your help. The point that I am tryingto make, and maybe I am not being clear, is that premise 1 is Irrelevant to anything. So to me, it goes:

All insane people are as responsible for their acts as anybody else, since it is a given that to Murder is to be Insane and it is therefore irrelevant. Since All murderers are insane and insane people are still as guilty of their acts as anybody else committing any other crime is, all people that murder are therefore guilty and the Insanity Defense is moot.

But there is a problem here. Moral culbability doesn't depend on what percentage of murderers are insane, even if the percentage is 100 (all murderers). Culpability depends on the definition of insane.

 

[Flea]

And that is why the definition of Insanity and the Defenseof Insanity are Irrelevant.

 

[Dezaad]

And that is why the definition of Insanity and the Defenseof Insanity are Irrelevant.

The definition of insanity is the reason why the definition of insanity is irrelevant?

 

[Flea]

I think that you should read what I wrote again. :2razz: