Re: Crime and Castration
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2002 9:55 pm
First of all, "Science" does not say there is no free will. "Science" doesn't deny anything, it only supports that which there is strong emprical evidence for. It says there's no scientific evidence for free will, and thus free will is left to philosophers and theologians. The bounds of science currently find themselves neatly in line with the bounds of Materialist thought: we are only our matter. We are certainly in part our matter, this much is irrefutable. I argue that our physically objectively analyzable traits are only that; traits. Our matieralistic nature is not mutually exclusive with a nonphysical existence. The facts of science are not the whole show. Science looks at these things and leaves the rest alone. Materialism, the argument that only "Science" can provide the "Truth" is simply a philosophical stance; an opinion amoung many opinions. This is surely another debate.
I would offer the point that legality and public policy, as well as the thinking that guides most people to their conceptualization of human nature, is not only scientific, but also philosophical and theological.
To get to something that actually applies to this thread: I had not considered Testosterone as an addictive drug. An interesting point. An exremely good argument for castration on demand for those who ask for it. It's still the individual's reponsibility to ask for it when it is needed, but I see that this is not currently an option. Well said.
Let me be very clear on this, I'm worried that I'm misunderstood. I do not advocate abandoning anyone who makes a drastic mistake as a first step. The definition of the word "drastic" would change over time to include things like forgetting to salt the sidewalk. An old lady busted her hip, you're BANISHED!!! I advocate the type of system I do as a replacement for life- and death-sentences. The rest of the system should emphasize education and therapy MUCH more heavily, but my point is that for those who refuse to "get it" and reform, we should deny them the right to parasitically live off of our taxes without killing them. Their blood should not be on our hands, but niether should thier lives.
Frankie
p.s. This is seriously a shitload of fun. Thanks everyone for the great discussion!
I would offer the point that legality and public policy, as well as the thinking that guides most people to their conceptualization of human nature, is not only scientific, but also philosophical and theological.
To get to something that actually applies to this thread: I had not considered Testosterone as an addictive drug. An interesting point. An exremely good argument for castration on demand for those who ask for it. It's still the individual's reponsibility to ask for it when it is needed, but I see that this is not currently an option. Well said.
Let me be very clear on this, I'm worried that I'm misunderstood. I do not advocate abandoning anyone who makes a drastic mistake as a first step. The definition of the word "drastic" would change over time to include things like forgetting to salt the sidewalk. An old lady busted her hip, you're BANISHED!!! I advocate the type of system I do as a replacement for life- and death-sentences. The rest of the system should emphasize education and therapy MUCH more heavily, but my point is that for those who refuse to "get it" and reform, we should deny them the right to parasitically live off of our taxes without killing them. Their blood should not be on our hands, but niether should thier lives.
Frankie
p.s. This is seriously a shitload of fun. Thanks everyone for the great discussion!