Commuting the Sentence of Medical Pedophiles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

It's a bit different with drunk persons because they chose to become drunk. Pedophiles did not choose to be pedophiles.

Now, before you go off on this irrelevant tangent again, please note that I was arguing about the mind-altering effect that alcohol has. Or any drug for that matter. Take PCP if you want a more serious example.

I mean, how would you look upon a person who became drunk/intoxicated not of his own choosing? Can be done by hiding alcoholic substances in other drinks, like vodka in apple juice. And who then caused an accident due to being drunk? Are those people really still responsible for what they did?

---

No, no, no. You are conflating action with for want of a better word disease.

An alcoholic probably didn't choose to become an alcoholic, a paedophile (by impulses) probably didn't choose to become a paedophile. But a drunk chose to drink. A child abuser chose to abuse the child.

I met an alcoholic once who hadn't had a drink in over 40 years! Sadly he's no longer with us, but he would still tell people he was an alcoholic - once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. An alcoholic doesn't need to drink, someone with paedophilic urges doesn't need to abuse children. As for your accident example, someone who causes one is responsible yes. The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will.

Being attracted to children but never acting on that impulse is not actually illegal. We don't have thoughtcrimes. Any criminal activity is an activity they chose to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, no, no. You are conflating action with for want of a better word disease.

An alcoholic probably didn't choose to become an alcoholic, a paedophile (by impulses) probably didn't choose to become a paedophile.

A drunk chose to drink. A child abuser chose to abuse the child.

I met an alcoholic once who hadn't had a drink in over 40 years! Sadly he's no longer with us, but he would still tell people he was an alcoholic - once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.

As for your accident example, someone who causes one is responsible yes. The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will.

---

Right. So I'm drugged against my will (AS I LINED OUT IN MY EXAMPLE) and you still tell me that I'm the party responsible for the accident, only to tell me in the next sentence that it's oh-so-different in a date-rape because there the person was drugged against their will? What? Do you actually listen to yourself?

And I see. An alcoholic does not choose to be an alcoholic and yet he somehow is able to choose to drink - so, what exactly IS an alcoholic then? If an alcoholic had full control over his actions what then makes him an alcoholic? Pray tell us. I'm eagerly awaiting your definition of an alcoholic.

From what you've shown here, that definition will be full of logical holes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Right. So I'm drugged against my will (AS I LINED OUT IN MY EXAMPLE) and you still tell me that I'm the party responsible for the accident, only to tell me in the next sentence that it's oh-so-different in a date-rape because there the person was drugged against their will? What? Do you actually listen to yourself?

---

If a person is drugged then the person who chose to drug the other one bears responsibility.

If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse.

Quote:

---

And I see. An alcoholic does not choose to be an alcoholic and yet he somehow is able to choose to drink - so, what exactly IS an alcoholic then? If an alcoholic had full control over his actions what then makes him an alcoholic? Pray tell us. I'm eagerly awaiting your definition of an alcoholic.

---

Yes an alcoholic has to choose to drink. There are plenty of alcoholics who don't drink.

Never heard the phrase "my name is ... and I'm an alcoholic, its been ... since my last drink"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If a person is drugged then the person who chose to drug the other one bears responsibility.

If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse.

---

And yet date-rape is different in your eyes. Hypocrisy much?

Quote:

---

Yes an alcoholic has to choose to drink. There are plenty of alcoholics who don't drink.

Never heard the phrase "my name is ... and I'm an alcoholic, its been ... since my last drink"?

---

Yes. And how many did manage to get off drinking without outside intervention? As I said: Logical hole. You're trying to tell us that a disease is not so dangerous after it has been treated...

I mean, you even cite the phrase of the group which helps people to stay off alcohol. If you were fully able to choose you would not need such interventions in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If a person is drugged then the person who chose to drug the other one bears responsibility.
If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse.

---

You just contradicted yourself there. :p Ignorance can be an explanation for behavior, if you're 'drugged' against your knowledge.

Quote:

---

Yes an alcoholic has to choose to drink. There are plenty of alcoholics who don't drink.
Never heard the phrase "my name is ... and I'm an alcoholic, its been ... since my last drink"?

---

Goes both ways....choosing NOT to drink included. I've heard of Dread's book, written by a neuroscientist. "The Parliament of the Mind" means we all have competing forces and impulses going on in our heads, most things we're not even aware of as they happen in our sub-conscious or become part of a routine or habit.

Struggle between short-term and long-term....gains or consequences. That's why kids and teens have such poor decision-making skills---because their pre-frontal and frontal lobes aren't fully developed yet, and their judgements are more immediate-gratification oriented. Isn't that one of the main reasons we have a Juvenile Court system that treats them differently than adults?

There's been a lot of new science that connects repeated head trauma (boxers, football players) with real changes in the brain, that alters decision-making and behavior. That old stereotype of the big, dumb, aggressive jock who ends up in fist fights, speeding car crashes, not picking up on cues from women even when they say NO, going through money like water----those guys.

And one of the first symptoms of dementia, Alzheimer's, organic brain syndromes can be a change in temper and temperament. Being uncharacteristically aggressive or violent, hyper-sexualized, losing inhibitions....and losing insight. We're going to need more places for mentally ill and elderly with cognitive disorders when they commit crimes. I don't think prison is the right place for them.

Quote:

---

You just contradicted yourself there. :razz: Ignorance can be an explanation for behavior, if you're 'drugged' against your knowledge.

---

You're right, he did. The person could have tested the drink to find that it had drugs in it, but nooo.. they ASSUMED it was a regular drink, and due to their ignorance caused them to behave in a way they did not want.

Anyway, I understand the difference perhaps he wants to draw, and I would draw. Firstly, I will state that for me ignorance is a valid excuse, I don't see how i'm supposed to blame an alien for not going the speed limit here on Earth. (at least morally). Furthermore, while I find ignorance a valid defense, negligence on the other hand I don't. If they are ignorant by negligence then I would give them some degree of responsibility, it's not the same level of wrong, or responsibility that someone making the mistake in full knowledge would garner, but they would have a level of blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Assuming that the alternative to his sentencing is aggressive treatment for his condition followed by strict monitoring, why not? Obviously there are some suspect bits about this case - you'd have to have a bunch of mental health professionals first prove that this was a mental health problem, and secondly that it could be convincingly treated... so I'm skeptical it could be done. But in theory? Why not?

The converse is that much of our 'antisocial' behavior (e.g. murders, rapes, etc.) might be construed as mental illness, which might militate for always focusing on the mental health problem and not punishment for the crime. But since I generally favor rehabilitation - when possible - over pointlessly locking up criminals, I suppose this might not be the worst outcome.

Let us imagine a future where many crimes can be traced to a mental instability and treated. Why shouldn't we change our jails from pens for criminals into mental health clinics that convincingly cure the ill? Obviously these would be involuntary 'commitments', and the criminals would be held until they were no longer considered a threat to others (so, not so different from jail after all). But in principle, I don't have a problem with trying to treat the mentally ill who perform heinous acts when they are unstable.

Of course, if you're suggesting that instead of a convincing treatment regimen we should just go easy on someone because they weren't 'themselves', I'd disagree entirely. They're still a threat to society regardless of their motives and level of control over their actions.

---

The flaw with that logic is that most forms of mental illness do not serve as a sufficient condition for crime. For every mentally ill person who commits a crime, there are probably 20 who do not (even if we control for type of illness). If we don't punish people just because of their mental health, we're saying that these people had no responsibility for their actions. This is rarely the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

And yet date-rape is different in your eyes. Hypocrisy much?

---

No hypocrisy. And I said date-rape style situation, not just date-rape. You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat the original quote "The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will."

Quote:

---

Yes. And how many did manage to get off drinking without outside intervention? As I said: Logical hole. You're trying to tell us that a disease is not so dangerous after it has been treated...

---

We don't know, we can't know.

Quote:

---

I mean, you even cite the phrase of the group which helps people to stay off alcohol. If you were fully able to choose you would not need such interventions in the first place!

---

It's not about the fact they have help or anything. The fact is they are the ones who are not acting on it. They are all still alcoholics, but they're not drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You just contradicted yourself there. :p Ignorance can be an explanation for behavior, if you're 'drugged' against your knowledge.

---

Being drugged against your will doesn't fall under ignorance. Ignorance is no defence under the law. If you're drugged against your will then you're a victim who has been attacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No hypocrisy. And I said date-rape style situation, not just date-rape. You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat the original quote "The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will."

---

Wait, wait, wait.

The sentence before that was: "If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse."

That, my dear, does not wash with your second sentence. It's a direct contradiction. Unless you now want to explain to us that those girls raped are somehow responsible for being raped under the influence.

Quote:

---

It's not about the fact they have help or anything. The fact is they are the ones who are not acting on it. They are all still alcoholics, but they're not drunk.

---

You really don't understand the difference between "untreated condition" and "condition under/after treatment", do you? You're conflating the two. You're obviously confused here. Again: To use a more outlandish comparison - it's like a person infected with Bubonic Plague all on his own, and a person infected with the Bubonic Plage under quarantine and stuffed with antibiotics. First one is dangerous, second one at risk but not actually dangerous. However, with your argument, the two are the same! When in reality they are not.

What is with Rand and rape lately? :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Wait, wait, wait.

The sentence before that was: "If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse."

That, my dear, does not wash with your second sentence. It's a direct contradiction. Unless you now want to explain to us that those girls raped are somehow responsible for being raped under the influence.

---

What is so difficult to understand?

If you drink an alcoholic drink out of ignorance then its your responsibility, if you drink a non-alcoholic drink but someone has drugged it then its their responsibility.

If I go to a bar and repeatedly order a cocktail, lets say Long Island Iced Tea and then drive off I can't turn around and say that I thought I was drinking a non-alcoholic tea drink and that I didn't realise Long Island Iced Tea was an alcoholic cocktail.

Quote:

---

You really don't understand the difference between "untreated condition" and "condition under/after treatment", do you? You're conflating the two. You're obviously confused here. Again: To use a more outlandish comparison - it's like a person infected with Bubonic Plague all on his own, and a person infected with the Bubonic Plage under quarantine and stuffed with antibiotics. First one is dangerous, second one at risk but not actually dangerous. However, with your argument, the two are the same! When in reality they are not.

---

You don't understand the difference between an impulse and an action?

Just because someone is attracted to children does not mean they have to abuse children. I am attracted to women, but I'm not out there abusing any. In fact I'm engaged, I've commited to only being with the same woman for the rest of my life. Does that mean that I'm never attracted to anyone else, that I'm commited to never thinking anyone else looks good? No, of course not. It means I won't act on that, because to do so would be wrong. Someone with an unnatural predilection towards children doesn't have to act on it, they can "live a lie" and ignore it.

Quote:

---

Being drugged against your will doesn't fall under ignorance. Ignorance is no defence under the law. If you're drugged against your will then you're a victim who has been attacked.

---

That's not the issue. It's correct to say the person trying to deceive you is wrong, and whatever they do after is also wrong (and they bare responsibility for it). However, do you bare responsibility for being ignorant and drinking the drink? Had you known it was spiked you wouldn't have drank it; however, you did not, so you drank it then behaved in a manner you did not want to, that perhaps caused you to hurt others, or be hurt by others. I think, what draws the line is negligence, and I don't think they were being negligent (in the case of their drink getting spiked), ignorance is obviously their excuse for drinking it, and their excuse for all subsequent acts they commit.

For example, imagine I drink something that makes you go mad with rage, and on a mindless rampage, like the hulk. If I was ignorant of the beverage, and I had no reasonable context to question it, I wouldn't blame said person for drinking it or their subsequent actions.

Just as, in the case of being deceived, by someone slipping a pill in the drink, I don't think it was negligence that caused them to drink what they did not want to drink.

Basically you have to think of it this way.

Suppose a criminal slips you a "go mad like the hulk pill" in your drink.

You take your drink of what once was regular Cherry Coke, then you "go mad like the hulk", and destroy a bunch of stuff.

Your defense for your actions, for why you continued drinking your Coke was that you were ignorant, and don't bare responsibility for taking a drink. Truthfully you were ignorant, and it's not reasonable for you to have known that fact.

Either way, ignorance is a valid defense, when it's not due to negligence.

Quote:

---

Someone with an unnatural predilection towards children doesn't have to act on it, they can "live a lie" and ignore it.

---

If they can't then they should be locked up, or placed somewhere where they can't harm children, or rehabilitated if possible (through pills or psychological conditioning). (regardless if it's their fault morally or not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What is so difficult to understand?

If you drink an alcoholic drink out of ignorance then its your responsibility, if you drink a non-alcoholic drink but someone has drugged it then its their responsibility.

---

Gods be good, Rand, next time please actually read what I wrote, yes?

Also, please explain to me the difference between "drinking alcohol out of ignorance" and "drinking a drugged non-alcoholic drink". Oh, wait, there is none.

Quote:

---

You don't understand the difference between an impulse and an action?

Just because someone is attracted to children does not mean they have to abuse children. I am attracted to women, but I'm not out there abusing any. In fact I'm engaged, I've commited to only being with the same woman for the rest of my life. Does that mean that I'm never attracted to anyone else, that I'm commited to never thinking anyone else looks good? No, of course not. It means I won't act on that, because to do so would be wrong. Someone with an unnatural predilection towards children doesn't have to act on it, they can "live a lie" and ignore it.

---

Yes, Rand, we get it. You have great impulse control. Other people don't. That's called a "mental disorder" for a reason. Is the concept of "having less self-control than sane people" really such a hard thing to grasp? You're projecting your own image of yourself onto other people and assume, just because you are this way, that everyone else also has to be just like you.

That is not the case and your shoddy arguments will get you laughed out of the room at every neural psychologists' convention.

Hell, your own way of thinking is not even the same as it was 10 years ago. Or 20. Do you honestly think that a toddler has the same impulse control as a 8 year old? Does that 8 years old have the same control as a 15 years old? And that 15 years old the same as an adult of 30 years? Of course not. Their brain development forbids it. THAT is the reason why male adolescents incur the biggest casualty rate when driving.
In short, your arguments are still riddled with holes, demonstrating a huge lack of insight into how the brain actually works. As long as you demonstrate that lack coupled with a lack of willingness to educate yourself in that department, an argument with you is akin to arguing with a monkey flinging poo.

Oh, wait. The monkey, at least, can't help it. You can. Read a book or two and recognize that YOU ARE NOT EVERYONE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What is so difficult to understand?

If you drink an alcoholic drink out of ignorance then its your responsibility, if you drink a non-alcoholic drink but someone has drugged it then its their responsibility.

---

You're mixing ignorance with responsibility in an odd way, or being too pedantic about what "intoxication" means. :confused:

If you order a Lemon Iced Tea but instead are served a Long Island Iced Tea....it's not your 'fault' for getting tipsy since you can't taste the alcohol. Just like not being able to detect roofies in your drink.

Remember we had that toddler served alcohol in his sippie cup at a restaurant. The parents didn't know why he was acting strange, until they drank from the cup and tasted the booze. Not their fault, not their liability. I don't know any parent who feels 'responsible' to test their toddler's sippie cups at restaurants. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yes, Rand, we get it. You have great impulse control. Other people don't. That's called a "mental disorder" for a reason. Is the concept of "having less self-control than sane people" really such a hard thing to grasp? You're projecting your own image of yourself onto other people and assume, just because you are this way, that everyone else also has to be just like you.

---

Sadly, a lot of people think that way, or that pretty much everything boils down to self-control or a strong will. And when people "fail", they just weren't trying hard enough, or something. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Sadly, a lot of people think that way, or that pretty much everything boils down to self-control or a strong will. And when people "fail", they just weren't trying hard enough, or something. :bulb:

---

I'm wondering where those people think that mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or autism actually stem from. With their logic, it surely can't be the brain because everyone just needs to control those impulses. What then is the source of it?

I don't know what they think about that. We can't even get a group consensus about whether or not Addictions are "real", how they should be treated, or if therapy or counseling is valid. When people say stuff like this:

Quote:

---

Someone with an unnatural predilection towards children doesn't have to act on it, they can "live a lie" and ignore it.

---

I think back to when homosexuality was considered unnatural, even a mental disorder. *Some* people today still think it's unnatural, but can be stuffed and ignored, not acted upon, living a lie and ignoring it. I think the pedophilia part got things started on the wrong foot here, because it's something we agree is "abnormal". But it wouldn't be to those in cultures that still marry 10-12 yr olds to grown men (or to each other).

And we don't know what causes pedophilia in the first place, other than the common trait of having been sexually abused as a child. :hmm:


edit

Forgot to add that schizophrenia and bipolar are hard to treat and maintain, because feeling better sometimes comes with a bit of euphoria (or maybe a change in insight) with medications. Their "impulse" is to stop taking the meds....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Sadly, a lot of people think that way, or that pretty much everything boils down to self-control or a strong will. And when people "fail", they just weren't trying hard enough, or something. :bulb:

---

If you don't have enough impulse control not to rape a child society should never give you a second chance. Honestly I don't even care if it was completely uncontrolled brain chemistry bull shit (which I don't believe for a second) the fact is that you aren't safe to be in society and you need to be removed.

Its far too common this day and age to not hold people accountable. Personal responsibility is an important part of life. It sickens me that so many people are all too eager to give people a pass and make excuses for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

What is with Rand and rape lately? :bulb:

---

I haven't even followed this closely enough to judge if you're right, but I just fracking love that I was able to find this on YouTube from Dexter (my favorite show about life in Florida):



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-tA6q9V2U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If you don't have enough impulse control not to rape a child society should never give you a second chance. Honestly I don't even care if it was completely uncontrolled brain chemistry bull shit (which I don't believe for a second) the fact is that you aren't safe to be in society and you need to be removed.

Its far too common this day and age to not hold people accountable. Personal responsibility is an important part of life. It sickens me that so many people are all too eager to give people a pass and make excuses for them.

---

You're the only one here saying that figuring out the Why of criminal behavior, and treating that appropriately, is the same as making excuses and giving passes. :donkey:

There are serial killers, serial rapists, serial wife beaters, and serial child abusers. There are others who get caught the first time, get treatment AND incarceration, and never repeat. The causes may be the same or totally different. Their punishment or attempts at rehab shouldn't be one-size-fits-all. That's not to say some people shouldn't spend the rest of their lives in institutions for the "criminally insane" or are "un-rehabilitable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Gods be good, Rand, next time please actually read what I wrote, yes?

Also, please explain to me the difference between "drinking alcohol out of ignorance" and "drinking a drugged non-alcoholic drink". Oh, wait, there is none.

---

The first was alcoholic and you could and should have known it was, to pretend afterwards that you didn't is not a valid legal defence. Ignorance is no defence is a long-established legal principle, because otherwise you'd be able to feign ignorance over everything. The latter you had a valid and reasonable reason to believe you were drinking a non-alcoholic drink.

The two are totally different.

Quote:

---

Hell, your own way of thinking is not even the same as it was 10 years ago. Or 20. Do you honestly think that a toddler has the same impulse control as a 8 year old? Does that 8 years old have the same control as a 15 years old? And that 15 years old the same as an adult of 30 years? Of course not. Their brain development forbids it. THAT is the reason why male adolescents incur the biggest casualty rate when driving.

---

An 8 year old would not be classed as a paedophile and in addition there's a reason we try adults differently to children.

Ignorance of THE LAW is not a justification for breaking the law. How you turned that into....ignorance of drinking booze when it wasn't what you ordered, can't be tasted, but you're still drinking booze so you're responsible....I have no idea. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Ignorance of THE LAW is not a justification for breaking the law. How you turned that into....ignorance of drinking booze when it wasn't what you ordered, can't be tasted, but you're still drinking booze so you're responsible....I have no idea. :confused:

---

I said when it was what you ordered. If I order a Budweiser I can't say afterwards I didn't realise it was alcoholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I said when it was what you ordered. If I order a Budweiser I can't say afterwards I didn't realise it was alcoholic.

---

No, you said

Quote:

---

If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse.

---

Please, for gosh sakes, can you just admit you typed it wrong, instead of trying to defend it? Then can we move on from the booze angle and get back to people with mental illnesses committing violent crimes and how to treat them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The first was alcoholic and you could and should have known it was, to pretend afterwards that you didn't is not a valid legal defence. Ignorance is no defence is a long-established legal principle, because otherwise you'd be able to feign ignorance over everything. The latter you had a valid and reasonable reason to believe you were drinking a non-alcoholic drink.

---

You do know that alcohol is also classified as a date-rape drug? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/85513.php

You're making yourself look very silly. And you "should have known it's alcohol"? Yeah, right, Rand. Let me clarify the scenario here: I had two beers and decided afterwards that I won't drink more this evening. Thus I turned to apple juice. My "friends", however, spiked the drink with vodka. And kept my glass filled up. Which over the course of the evening made me very drunk. Now, if you have never tried that, vodka in apple juice is almost undetectable - the taste of the juice hides the alcohol taste very well. I only know about it because they actually told me the next morning.
Now, let me ask you this: How exactly do you dare to accuse me of "ignorance"?

Quote:

---

The two are totally different. An 8 year old would not be classed as a paedophile and in addition there's a reason we try adults differently to children.

---

Yes, because the brains of children are wired differently. That's the reason why we treat children differently. Now, here's the kicker: The brain of pedophiles is ALSO wired differently. Which means, just like you don't treat children like adults, you also can't treat pedophiles the same way as "normal" adults. Do you still not grasp the concept that your brain's wiring determines a large percentage of what you are and what you do?

How exactly do you explain paranoid schizophrenia? Autism? Bipolar disorder? Will you treat these mental disorders the same way you treat a normal adult? ANSWER THE QUESTION. You're dodging again, which means to me that you don't know. And yet you engage in these idiotic arguments where you bring nothing to the table save your willful ignorance.

Why don't you go to the next closed psychiatry and yell at the inmates to "JUST SNAP OUT OF IT!" Will help a shitload, I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I said when it was what you ordered. If I order a Budweiser I can't say afterwards I didn't realise it was alcoholic.

---

Gods be good. Here's what I wrote and what you responded to:

Quote:

---

I mean, how would you look upon a person who became drunk/intoxicated not of his own choosing? Can be done by hiding alcoholic substances in other drinks, like vodka in apple juice. And who then caused an accident due to being drunk? Are those people really still responsible for what they did?

---

That is my original statement which, since then, I have not changed one iota. Maybe you should make yourself look less of a fool and admit that you were not actually reading what I write?

Rand doesn't appear on-line any more, Khen. (He's not an irrational person, maybe he's been reading/posting in haste and we can give him the benefit of the doubt?) Back on topic:

Anecdotal to some, but I've been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (plus PTSD, abandonment syndrome, neuroses like OCD, and some other things :eek:). I have spent the last few years trying to coordinate meds and therapy. It's been hell. Now there's the suggestion that I may have type 2 bipolar disorder, but because I was so "high functioning" for so many years, my manic phases (hypomania) went undetected. It's still hell, but 'tolerable'. Like moving up on rungs, slowly, out of an abyss. Constant reminder--when there's light at the end of the tunnel, it's not a train coming smack at me, and I won't die. <Don't laugh, it's not funny>

I can assure you all....that if I could have just willed myself out of this, I would have! I've made some pretty bad decisions the last few years, the kind that could have left me dead and my kids without a mother. But I didn't have the ability to "think" my way to prevention or protection, let alone ask for help. My insight was like a familiar memory that went to sleep, or took to hiding, but I didn't even care. So hard to explain....

But when Lewk or Rand make these blanket statements, so black and white, my stink-o-meter kicks in. I recognize them as people who have NO idea what mental illness is, or how it affects people. The kind of people like me, kind and loving to others, but hiding the desire to drive off a cliff or swerve into the path of an 18 wheeler, knowing others will be hurt....constantly hoping I'll never follow through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You're making yourself look very silly. And you "should have known it's alcohol"? Yeah, right, Rand. Let me clarify the scenario here: I had two beers and decided afterwards that I won't drink more this evening. Thus I turned to apple juice. My "friends", however, spiked the drink with vodka. And kept my glass filled up. Which over the course of the evening made me very drunk. Now, if you have never tried that, vodka in apple juice is almost undetectable - the taste of the juice hides the alcohol taste very well. I only know about it because they actually told me the next morning.
Now, let me ask you this: How exactly do you dare to accuse me of "ignorance"?

---

Seriously? Clearly that falls under your drink being spiked :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Seriously? Clearly that falls under your drink being spiked :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If you drink something that you didn't realise contained alcohol out of ignorance or whatever then you're still responsible. Ignorance is no excuse.

---

Didn't you just tell us that spiking a drink is no excuse?

Furthermore, you're pulling a Loki here. So, let's try that again: What, in your opinion, is the cause for autism, bipolar disorders or paranoid schizophrenia? Please answer the question this time, you dodged that the other two times I asked. If you don't do that this time I think I am indeed entitled to call you an ignorant dipshit. As you yourself said: Ignorance is no excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yes, because the brains of children are wired differently. That's the reason why we treat children differently. Now, here's the kicker: The brain of pedophiles is ALSO wired differently. Which means, just like you don't treat children like adults, you also can't treat pedophiles the same way as "normal" adults. Do you still not grasp the concept that your brain's wiring determines a large percentage of what you are and what you do?

---

Pedophiles have urges that normal people do not. Children, meanwhile, are unable to suppress their urges, whatever they are. The situations are not comparable.

Quote:

---

Ignorance is no defence is a long-established legal principle, because otherwise you'd be able to feign ignorance over everything. The latter you had a valid and reasonable reason to believe you were drinking a non-alcoholic drink.

---

Really here they should say negligence is no defense. I understand the wiggle room of ignorance (even though i think it's valid), but even if they say they're ignorant you can get them on negligence. It would be reasonable to assume a person who goes to a bar gets drunk then drives, and says oh i didn't know i was "drunk" or that drinking alchohol gets you drunk was being willfully negligent to abundant information surrounding this issue. Thus, should be held liable, in most contexts, for committing the illegal act.