Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    And I say yes ( or at least don't automatically say no). I think we both knew this before we started though :moon:
    This much is true. :moon:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Ha. I was diagnosed with a mental illness when I was 14. So please do not presume to lecture me about the effects of mental illness. I know how it feels and have done, and continue to do, a host of incredibly stupid things. The only difference is I'm not trying to play the victim and transfer responsibility to my illness or other people thereby giving myself leeway to continue on the same path.
    Yeah, you can suffer from something and still know very little about it, the statement in bold demonstrates that with you, this is the case. In addition, you are also implying that every mental disorder is the same as the one you had. Tell me, have you ever suffered from psychosis?

    Seeing as all you can take are personal examples, i also suffer from depression. You have seen the quality of the arguments i make about control so you can successfully infer my attitude to it, if your statement were true, and it legitimises unhealthy/negative behaviours then i would be down a horrible path. However, this is not the case. Accepting that sometimes things are beyond your control is not the same as excusing it. If i dosed you with MDMA, neurons in your brain would fire that release serotonin and make you feel a whole host of things, that does not mean you are actually feeling those things.

    You say the brain is like an organ, well here's a question: should we cap prices for takeaways seeing as hunger and eating is a basic impulse we have very little control over; restaurants in Central London are a ****ing ripoff after all! :rolleyes
    Except that this is something we do. The residents income actually shows that the right believe this as much as the left. It covers food, as well as other things that are necessary for positive health, i.e. some downtime, hence being paid more than just for food. We also do this in RL, by covering basic needs through JSA and other basic needs through housing benefits. For individuals like the one posting, we have ESA.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    No, you asked me whether or not I think diminished responsibility is a valid defence. I assumed you meant in the criminal justice system, where it only exists as a defence to murder. My bad.

    Your viewpoint is the currently dominant one, no worries though, I'm aiming to be a judge so don't expect it to be that way for long!
    Apologies, i did not know that it was only for murder. I was talking about in general showing someone to not have the sound judgemental ability to make a decision detracting from the Mens rea, if i am using the phrase correctly?

    No offence, but that is quite horrible. You really do need to approach each thing in a case by case basis and discounting something that you have no real understanding of is quite abhorrent. The criminal justice system can only work alongside mental health teams, and to be fair, psychology has proved itself many times, especially in the case of law where PACE leads to a better conviction rate, the cognitive interview to a better lie detection rate, and rehabilitation projects to work better than jail. Beyond this, if, because of your ideological dogma you are still against any form of psychological argument, then you are going some way to show that you will not be an unbiased judge. Thankfully, expert witnesses exist as you quite clearly think of it as some kind of excuse.

    EDIT: Really, read Sybil, it will show you that it isnt just about mindset. It is a lot bigger.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    If I ever meet you I'm going to smash you so hard in the mouth

    If you don't have the money to feed your children you will take one of these loans, for example. To conclude that anybody who falls foul of this particular exploitation is stupid - as you so clearly do here - is so offensive and so completely disgusting that I am not sure that I am even joking about the above. This is just everything that is wrong your party wrapped up in one post and frankly some of the better members of your party should be ashamed to share a platform with you.
    Don't worry, after your comments I am more than willing to return the favour, especially as you misunderstood what I was saying and decided to form an opinion about me and my party in general because of it - and seemingly almost prejudging me because of the party I am a part of. The truth is I take a libertarian stance on this, one which is likely fairly similar to a vast number of your colleagues, so you best offer the smash to the mouth and insulting comments to them too.

    With the stupidity remark, I wasn't saying that someone who takes out one of these loans is stupid. What I was actually saying is that someone who doesn't research the loans properly and yet still goes into the deal is stupid - basically someone who rushes into it blind is a fool, what's wrong with saying that? All I'm saying is that someone who doesn't realise what they're signing up to deserves what they get. This motion implies that people are rushing into the loans without knowing what they'll get and they need the government to take care of them. I believe that most people are in fact intelligent enough to weigh up the pros and cons themselves, and anyone who goes into a payday loan without realising the high rates of interest because they rushed into it and didn't do their research is a fool, BUT someone who knows what they're doing ISN'T a fool.
    In fact the vast majority of the people using these loans aren't fools because it is the only option they have.

    Rushing into a loan however is like buying a house without finding out how many bedrooms it has. What I'm saying is not the same as saying everyone who takes out one of these loans is stupid. I think that it can sometimes be the right decision. Each to their own. The people should be free to weigh up the pros and cons, just as the businesses should be free to charge whatever rates of APR they want. I'm not willing to restrict either side's freedoms just because a few people don't realise the APR - because most people do realise it anyway, it's only the minority that are stupid.

    My belief is that these companies are utterly abhorrent, but what right do I have to say we should restrict their business model? None. It's not exactly hurting anyone; they know what they signed up for and with freedom comes responsibility. I believe that the people of this country are intelligent enough to make their own decision. Anyway, we have the RI here so I doubt that these companies are as big in TSR land.

    Anyway, let's propose they are still big. Will restricting what they can do help us? Well, I'd bet that these companies adopt a fairly risky business model, and that restricting what they can do will cut their margins to the point of complete unprofitability, and that a great deal of them would go out of business almost overnight because of this. "Who cares?" I hear you cry. Well, no-one. Not even I do, like I said they are abhorrent companies. BUT, people are still going to need money, they can't go to the bank because of their credit ratings or whatever, but they need it somehow, so where will they go? They'll go to Big Sal in the dark alley, the kind of guy who offers £500 in exchange for breaking their legs and burning their house down. Criminal loan sharks will still exist whatever we do, and I highly suspect that placing restrictions on these legal companies will give an absolutely massive boost to the criminal loan shark extortion rackets. Is that what you want? It's just like drugs, restricting the less-bad guys just helps out the really-bad guys. I'd rather we have these companies ruling the loan roost than these big crime rings, they are both nasty people, but the latter are nasty to the point of homicide.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Don't worry, after your comments I am more than willing to return the favour,
    Willing, but not able my love.

    especially as you misunderstood what I was saying and decided to form an opinion about me and my party in general because of it - and seemingly almost prejudging me because of the party I am a part of. The truth is I take a libertarian stance on this, one which is likely fairly similar to a vast number of your colleagues, so you best offer the smash to the mouth and insulting comments to them too.
    No I read and understood what you said perfectly. If you meant to communicate something else that is your problem not mine and I would suggest you make some effort to achieve greater clarity in the future. I formed an opinion of you yes but by definition the opinion of your party had been formed previously or my comment would have made no sense. So that part is incorrect.

    With the stupidity remark, I wasn't saying that someone who takes out one of these loans is stupid. What I was actually saying is that someone who doesn't research the loans properly and yet still goes into the deal is stupid - basically someone who rushes into it blind is a fool, what's wrong with saying that? All I'm saying is that someone who doesn't realise what they're signing up to deserves what they get. This motion implies that people are rushing into the loans without knowing what they'll get and they need the government to take care of them. I believe that most people are in fact intelligent enough to weigh up the pros and cons themselves, and anyone who goes into a payday loan without realising the high rates of interest because they rushed into it and didn't do their research is a fool, BUT someone who knows what they're doing ISN'T a fool.
    In fact the vast majority of the people using these loans aren't fools because it is the only option they have.

    Rushing into a loan however is like buying a house without finding out how many bedrooms it has. What I'm saying is not the same as saying everyone who takes out one of these loans is stupid. I think that it can sometimes be the right decision. Each to their own. The people should be free to weigh up the pros and cons, just as the businesses should be free to charge whatever rates of APR they want. I'm not willing to restrict either side's freedoms just because a few people don't realise the APR - because most people do realise it anyway, it's only the minority that are stupid.

    My belief is that these companies are utterly abhorrent, but what right do I have to say we should restrict their business model? None. It's not exactly hurting anyone; they know what they signed up for and with freedom comes responsibility. I believe that the people of this country are intelligent enough to make their own decision. Anyway, we have the RI here so I doubt that these companies are as big in TSR land.

    Anyway, let's propose they are still big. Will restricting what they can do help us? Well, I'd bet that these companies adopt a fairly risky business model, and that restricting what they can do will cut their margins to the point of complete unprofitability, and that a great deal of them would go out of business almost overnight because of this. "Who cares?" I hear you cry. Well, no-one. Not even I do, like I said they are abhorrent companies. BUT, people are still going to need money, they can't go to the bank because of their credit ratings or whatever, but they need it somehow, so where will they go? They'll go to Big Sal in the dark alley, the kind of guy who offers £500 in exchange for breaking their legs and burning their house down. Criminal loan sharks will still exist whatever we do, and I highly suspect that placing restrictions on these legal companies will give an absolutely massive boost to the criminal loan shark extortion rackets. Is that what you want? It's just like drugs, restricting the less-bad guys just helps out the really-bad guys. I'd rather we have these companies ruling the loan roost than these big crime rings, they are both nasty people, but the latter are nasty to the point of homicide.
    In short because I lack the motivation to offer a detailed reply:

    1) Somebody making a poor decision, or making a mistake as a result of a particular circumstance does not make them stupid. Nor does somebody rushing into a decision as a result of a circumstance or them not doing the right "research" because to be frank not everybody knows how to and it has **** all to do with their intelligence.
    2) I agree with your point about TSR land but wish to clarify that as far as I am concerned this debate is broadly being had with reference to real life.
    3) Very few people know a loan shark or where to find one and the point is that their practices are illegal despite being very similar at the end of the day. Both ruin lives. In one case people can call the police but may be far too scared to do so and in the other case people can choose not to pay and will suffer not physical violence but will find themselves in crippling debt.
    4) A choice made as a result of coercion is not a free choice. If I tell you that I will kill your mum if you don't give me your clothes should you be held responsible for being naked the next day?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    snip
    Murder still exists, should we legalise that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Yeah, you can suffer from something and still know very little about it, the statement in bold demonstrates that with you, this is the case. In addition, you are also implying that every mental disorder is the same as the one you had. Tell me, have you ever suffered from psychosis?
    No. But this is a very good point, not all mental disorders are the same. But the law already recognises this by using the defence of insanity [also automatism], which covers mental illnesses that completely impair brain functions. But this is not what we were talking about. People who are legally classed as 'insane' cannot sign contracts because they cannot reasonably be expected to understand what they are undertaking. Depression is not psychosis or insanity.

    If this motion was saying that there should be a statutory requirement for lenders to get someone's medical history before lending in case the person can't fully understand what they are doing, they we might have something to talk about. But this isn't what is being suggested.

    Seeing as all you can take are personal examples, i also suffer from depression. You have seen the quality of the arguments i make about control so you can successfully infer my attitude to it, if your statement were true, and it legitimises unhealthy/negative behaviours then i would be down a horrible path. However, this is not the case. Accepting that sometimes things are beyond your control is not the same as excusing it. If i dosed you with MDMA, neurons in your brain would fire that release serotonin and make you feel a whole host of things, that does not mean you are actually feeling those things.
    All I understand is personal examples... :rolleyes:

    Anyway, as I said above, depression does not make you act like automaton, while you are certainly not in the most ideal mental state, you still have control. Depression is somewhat (not the I said somewhat) similar to extreme anger. We can be as reductionistic as we want about the workings of the brain in the event, but you will find very few people who will say anger exonerates someone from an act of violence, for example.

    As an aside though, how can you say a 'release of seretonin.. make[s] you feel a whole host of things... does not mean you are actually feeling those things'? That's completely nonsensical. On one hand you are attempting to say that the brain is a chemical machine but then denying that it feels things just because the source is from an external substance. You are feeling it, even if it comes from MDMA.

    Except that this is something we do. The residents income actually shows that the right believe this as much as the left. It covers food, as well as other things that are necessary for positive health, i.e. some downtime, hence being paid more than just for food. We also do this in RL, by covering basic needs through JSA and other basic needs through housing benefits. For individuals like the one posting, we have ESA.

    I'm not sure how the all of this is relevant to my question.

    Apologies, i did not know that it was only for murder. I was talking about in general showing someone to not have the sound judgemental ability to make a decision detracting from the Mens rea, if i am using the phrase correctly?

    No offence, but that is quite horrible. You really do need to approach each thing in a case by case basis and discounting something that you have no real understanding of is quite abhorrent. The criminal justice system can only work alongside mental health teams, and to be fair, psychology has proved itself many times, especially in the case of law where PACE leads to a better conviction rate, the cognitive interview to a better lie detection rate, and rehabilitation projects to work better than jail. Beyond this, if, because of your ideological dogma you are still against any form of psychological argument, then you are going some way to show that you will not be an unbiased judge. Thankfully, expert witnesses exist as you quite clearly think of it as some kind of excuse.

    EDIT: Really, read Sybil, it will show you that it isnt just about mindset. It is a lot bigger.
    I never said that 'diminished responsibility' should not exist. Just that it should stop being classified as a defence to murder for the reasons I stated at the top of this post, and this has very little to do with ideological dogma. It's a completely separate issue. I did not say that psychological arguments should be discounted, but they should not be considered as far as liability for crime is concerned. And they already aren't, apart from where murder is concerned.

    Besides, being depressed won't stop you from going to jail for a killing. It might [currently] negate your mens rea for murder, but all it does is change the conviction from murder to involuntary manslaughter, which carries a discretionary life sentence. All I was suggesting was that rather than negating your mens rea, diminished responsibility should be considered a part of the mitigating factors which reduce/increase your sentence. Which is better?

    The only defenses which are absolute are insanity and automatism, and it takes a whole lot for you to be considered either. Also, we've strayed completely from the point of this thread. None of this relevant any longer, and I've said my piece. Toodles.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Willing, but not able my love.



    No I read and understood what you said perfectly. If you meant to communicate something else that is your problem not mine and I would suggest you make some effort to achieve greater clarity in the future. I formed an opinion of you yes but by definition the opinion of your party had been formed previously or my comment would have made no sense. So that part is incorrect.



    In short because I lack the motivation to offer a detailed reply:

    1) Somebody making a poor decision, or making a mistake as a result of a particular circumstance does not make them stupid. Nor does somebody rushing into a decision as a result of a circumstance or them not doing the right "research" because to be frank not everybody knows how to and it has **** all to do with their intelligence.
    2) I agree with your point about TSR land but wish to clarify that as far as I am concerned this debate is broadly being had with reference to real life.
    3) Very few people know a loan shark or where to find one and the point is that their practices are illegal despite being very similar at the end of the day. Both ruin lives. In one case people can call the police but may be far too scared to do so and in the other case people can choose not to pay and will suffer not physical violence but will find themselves in crippling debt.
    4) A choice made as a result of coercion is not a free choice. If I tell you that I will kill your mum if you don't give me your clothes should you be held responsible for being naked the next day?
    Understandable.

    1) Yes it does. Only a fool doesn't notice the big fat "5736583765837573843638% APR" label staring them in the face. If they can't notice that then it is their fault. It's like saying that a murderer who claims that he didn't realsie guns could kill people should be given a get out of jail free card. Responsibility is a fundamental part of civilised society.

    2) Yeah I see what you're saying there and agree, most of my points are focused upon the assumption that we're talking about real life. It's one of those situations which is hard to quantify for TSR land so all we can really do is talk about the real world. However, it is still something to bear in mind I think.

    3) Believe me, if you need the money that bad you'll find one. These people seek out the poor and needy, it would not be hard to find one, especially in an urban area. Sure both have the capacity to ruin lives, but the criminals are much worse. The companies act within the law, they pile on the pressure. But loan sharks not only pile on the pressure, but they also severly threaten a person. I'm not talking about a pushy letter, I'm talking about a bat to the face, hurting family members, burning down properties. Seriously evil people. Again, I prefer the companies to be in control. The companies are only nasty, the loan sharks are super ****ing crazy nasty. I prefer the former.

    Anyway, let's assume you're right. Let's assume it's hard for someone to find a loan shark, and that payday loan companies no longer exist. What is poor Abbie with 7 kids and a tenner to last a week gonna do without a source of emergency money? She'll probably have to turn to crime, or maybe she'll whore herself out. I'd rather people have access to some kind of relief in tough times, and I'd prefer it if that relief came from companies rather than violent crime rings.

    4) That argument only works if you assume the people are coerced 100%. They can refuse it if they want. Obviously, when in a difficult position then they probably won't find it easy to say no just because they just can't afford to do so, but that doesn't mean they are actually fully coerced, they still have free will at the end of the day. A loan shark however is much more coercive.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Murder still exists, should we legalise that?
    A person is the sole legitimate owner of their own life. No-one else has a right to control that life as it does not belong to them, whether that is a government or another person. Murder should be illegal because it involves a third party taking control of another person's life away from them, and thus is an infringement of liberty.

    It is because of this that we need government and not anarchy (Us libertarian minded people do want government, we just want less of it. Anarchy is not on the menu. Anarchy is even worse than authoritarian-socialism). The government exists to protect liberty. You often hear libertarian people complain about government infringement of liberty, but people can infringe upon it too. And it is government's job to stop that. The government shouldn't protect a person from themselves (so you deserve the freedom to take out a loan or become a drug addict), but they should protect a person from their neighbour (so I have no right to take your life).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    A person is the sole legitimate owner of their own life. No-one else has a right to control that life as it does not belong to them, whether that is a government or another person. Murder should be illegal because it involves a third party taking control of another person's life away from them, and thus is an infringement of liberty.

    It is because of this that we need government and not anarchy (Us libertarian minded people do want government, we just want less of it. Anarchy is not on the menu. Anarchy is even worse than authoritarian-socialism). The government exists to protect liberty. You often hear libertarian people complain about government infringement of liberty, but people can infringe upon it too. And it is government's job to stop that. The government shouldn't protect a person from themselves (so you deserve the freedom to take out a loan or become a drug addict), but they should protect a person from their neighbour (so I have no right to take your life).
    However, that argument is dependent on one massive fallacy; that some inherent sense of freedom exists. You propose that you value freedom, but freedom does not exist in isolation. Social structures are a fact of human evolution, we have pretty much literally evolved a system of governance because we are social beings. The effect of this, of course, is that our behaviour is constrained in some way. You draw the line at your individual body, however, if your individual body from birth was placed in the woods and left to its own devices it would think and behave completely differently. This is not to say that we are a bank slate, but that mind and environment interact to create you. The richness of your environment, for example, mathematics, is a human construct that we have developed to understand the world, rather than an inherent fact of the world.

    This means that the way you think, the very essence of your being is a product of the outside world. Beyond governance, this is true in terms of social influence. But given that our environment shapes our behaviour the question turns not to how free we are, but where we should draw the line. As a product of our social evolution, we are intelligent beings, this is in no way necessary for our existence, lots of other societies such as tribes live in the wilderness, as do many other species. In fact, one may argue that ignorance is bliss. However, as a society that values intelligence, we decide to educate our young, whether part of a government owned and funded system that i believe in, or a privatised system that you believe in. In fact, we go further, and punish parents that do infringe on this man made right for a child to become educated.

    As our society gets bigger and bigger, we continue to reap the benefits of forcing our children through this system, we evolve with bigger brains and greater intelligence (the flynn effect) but the very essence of our individual being is compromised. Rather than functioning as an individual, we became functioning as a family, then a tribe, but now we are a bigger tribe, a country. Of course, this brings with it numerous benefits, we discover medicine, we reward the people that bring these advancements with currency. We have a greater means to exist as a society, trains, roads and so on. All of this benefits us all. The question continues, given that we like to live in a certain way, how best to continue on our existence? The answer, of course, is to optimise human functioning, to provide social security to the poor so they are not dying in the streets but are a reserve army of labour. But our morals have evolved alongside this, we do not like to witness people dying in the streets, so people that are too old to work some benefits as well.

    But now we face a problem, our intelligence has become a burden, we feel bad when we realise that people are dying in the streets. The morals that have evolved as part of our thirst for knowledge have made us realise that we do not only have a debt to our family, who raised us, but our society, who made us. We evolve a collective conscious about how we would like to be treated, and generalise that to others. This is not oppression, this is what it is to be human.

    To exist in our system does not mean to exist without obligation, which your philosophy implies, but a massive obligation to those around you. So we see those living in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and we have the state, a man made creation, support them. Of course, there will be some bad apples, that take advantage of these people, such as loan sharks or Wonga, so we outlaw them. These are individuals that are not just lending for an obscene profit once, but are making a living out of it, and a pretty cosy one at that.

    You can argue that this is untrue all you would like, but that would also be a fallacy. Your opinion that the government should not intervene in individual liberty is simply that, an opinion. Actually, if you were to look at societies across the world, it is quite clearly an incorrect opinion. Government can only exist with some degree of consent, and there is a massive underground world that does not give its consent, and exists without government* but if people actually did not consent, then we would have anarchy. Of course, governments can also make us do terrible things, like the nazi regime, which itself is down to social influence but even our intervention was arguably guided on moral grounds.

    * People may say that the underground world exists in oppression, however, i would disagree. This was what i heard from a review from a recent underground party:
    "That was stunning party!! police also seemed to be amazed seeing us enjoying. when Thanked police for being so good, policeman said ''all of you are harmless and happy, there is no point to interrupt''. "
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This is in cessation (as of 22:23, 24/07/12).
    This has been withdrawn (as of 22:23, 31/08/12).
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.