Nature vs nurture

Scroll to see replies

This is a circular argument. "A crime is something that is against the law. It is against the law because it is a crime". Not very helpful. Much more helpful to ask (of murder for example), "how does killing become a crime? Why is it sometimes not a crime? What is it about state killing that makes it legitimate? What power is involved? Whose interests?" etc

If you wanted me to respond about this, perhaps you should have phrased your questions accordingly. And no, before you say you did, you really didn't.

Reply 81

Birkenhead

Original post by Kibalchich

How do these representatives come to be in the position to be standing for election? Whose interests do they represent? Why are privately educated people over-represented in Parliament? What legitimacy does a cabinet of millionaires have to tell people how to run their lives?

Anyone can stand for election. The legitimacy these people have to represent people is given by the fact that they have been elected to that position.

Reply 82

akash11

I think it can be a bit of booth in the sence that while some people are more inclined to carry out violent/evil acts, in almost all cases it would take a preety traumatic event to get them to commit thoes acts. Although it is said tha some people are born sadistic and just enjoy commiting violent acts. So in almost all cases it may be booth but in some cases it could be nature alone.

Reply 83

Fullofsurprises

Original post by lulubel

Well, these studies suggest they are born not bred. I suppose nurture can make problems worse though. Maybe it is a bit of both for some people.

But I go more for nature because lots of people have bad upbringings and situations but only a small percentage of people go on to commit these serious crimes.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/08/28/20149676.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5979198/Psychopaths-are-born-not-bred-according-to-a-new-study.html

Those studies are about a particular group of the mentally ill - psychopaths - and not about criminality generally.

Reply 84

Kibalchich

Original post by Tuerin

Anyone can stand for election. The legitimacy these people have to represent people is given by the fact that they have been elected to that position.

Talk me through the process whereby someone stands for election. Tell me about the eligibility criteria. Tell about the campainging process and how parties pay for campaigns.

Reply 85

Kibalchich

Original post by Tuerin

The one with the inflated ego is you; unlike s.aley, who has acknowledged her error and moved on cordially, you continue to headbang your badly worded posts. It is now clear that you have been enquiring as to the legitimacy of our law-making process - hence the italics in the last post and your complaints about eton cabinet ministers etc. You don't seem to be conceding at any point that you have not been phrasing this question in your past posts - including those where you backed s.aley up on her posts, posts she now acknowledges to have been asking the wrong questions to what she meant to be asking - defining 'criminal' instead of locating the legitimacy of the law-making process.

Let's be clear:

You have historically asked what defines a crime. I have responded correctly by saying that a crime is an act which defies the law.

You are now going on (in very circumlocutory and confused language) about the legitimacy of our legal process. I have no opinions on the legitimacy of our legal process; frankly I couldn't care less whether our elected representatives are worthy or not of being in position. I think anyone's as good as anyone as ultimately policy is still going to be essentially the same. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that it's not the elected representatives that influence policy but members of the media and finance.

To conclude: I find your language poorly constructed and you rather stubborn, even when it's clear that you've been wrong for ~30 posts in your phrasing of questions and the consequent (correct) answers offered to you, then met with undeserved snobbishness and dismissal. I have responded thus far to clarify your objections to the original discussion I was in but since it has mutated away from that (and because I despair at your ways) I am departing this discussion and bid you goodnight.

If we look at your responses, we can see that you are the one that has been dismissive and rude and singularly failed to engage in debate. All I've really done is pose a series of questions about power in society. You seem to not be very familiar with asking these sorts of questions. Its a common discourse in sociology and politics. The failing appears to be with your intellectual capabilities.

Reply 86

Kibalchich

Original post by Tuerin

If you wanted me to respond about this, perhaps you should have phrased your questions accordingly. And no, before you say you did, you really didn't.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're either on a wind up or just not that bright. Which is it?

Reply 87

Birkenhead

Original post by Kibalchich

Talk me through the process whereby someone stands for election. Tell me about the eligibility criteria. Tell about the campainging process and how parties pay for campaigns.

I am not a political encyclopaedia. Your argument has come to exist entirely of questions. All you need to stand for election is 18 years of age, British citizenship and a £500 deposit which will be given back provided you take at least 5% of the vote.

Reply 88

Birkenhead

Original post by Kibalchich

Once again you ignore the fact that while you have been asking questions - namely, to define criminality - you have failed to ask the right ones. When I have answered your questions by saying that a criminal is - correctly - anyone who defies the law, you start asking about what legitimacy the law has to convict them, and on this basis dismiss my prior answer. Absurd! If you want to know about the legitimacy of our legal process, ask about that as s.aley long ago caught on to do, instead of asking for a definition of criminality and then refuting this sound definition because you dispute the validity of the system that has created it. The fact that you have to keep asserting a deficiency in my intellect - rather than just winning an argument - demonstrates your own personal failures, not mine

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 89

Birkenhead

Original post by Kibalchich

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're either on a wind up or just not that bright. Which is it?

I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to transparent personal subversion to compensate for your intellectual myopia.

Neither is true.

Ignoring Tuerin for a bit and going back to the OP, I think its worth noting the prevalence of psychiatric disorders within the prison population and the over-representation of people who have been in local authority care.

http://www.prisonmentalhealth.org/content_show.asp?c=17&fid=620&fc=001