a reply to: Shamrock6
Despite their being "channeled", psychologically and biologically (the architecture of their neurons and inter-neuronal communication) to act the way
What exactly, may I ask, is so difficult to understand about that? You said what I wrote was opinion - not a science textbook. Do you acknowledge such
things as a "science textbook"? If yes - are you willing to accept that as a developmental psychologist (which is what I am) I am informed of these
things, and so, despite this thread being "my opinion" - it is an opinion formed from science, and thus, is a "scientific opinion"?
Sometimes people setup this dichotomy "opinion" vs. "science", as if they don't occur together; every science book is written by a person, who, of
course, has opinions. On the other hand, science is all about methodologically "winnowing out" arbitrary and subjective feelings about what one hopes
or expects. For instance, the science of how an adult affects an infant is simply observational: you see what the parent does, and you see how the
infant responds. You increase the number of examples/cases to get a more "quantitative" value, so that you can see more accurately what factors are
responsible for which effects.
So yes, what I've written is my opinion, but it is also an opinion founded on basic science. Since science is meant to suggest "objective reality" -
in that great pains are taken to exclude certain types of biasing information (such as the anger one feels when people are killed) - I would hope that
people could recognize how important it is when people speak from the perspective of 'science'.
Yes, tax-payer money goes to support people who commit crimes. However, if you were to really watch the developmental "tracks" which guide people
(from basic, species-wide, organizing principles, such as the need to adapt to painful experiences) up until the point where they commit their
horrendous deed, how could we honestly say "this person I can tolerate", whereas this person, although he is totally unlucky (given what we understand
about development) what he did was too heinous for me to allow him to survive.
People aren't animals. I can understand the temptation to kill someone who kills 9 other people but when you consider these factors - both how his
neurobiology structurally biases his attentional processes (via his development and the experiences hes had to "build" to make-meaning in his
environment), and how present contextual influences interact with his neurobiology, it really isn't his fault. It's a systems effect: a "tipping
point", or "climax" occurs, where what scaffolds a present state leads into a new state. For example, his craziness, not being noted by his father,
was "equipped" by his fathers decision to buy him a handgun. Now with his background (neurobiologically/psychologically) an environment that is not in
the least bit perceptive (father, family etc) and he goes and kills a bunch of people.
Taxation is not something people "should do"; it is a moral corollary of the fact that we develop in a system. Some of us are "on top", others are at
the bottom. Taxes remedy this situation by ACKNOWLEDGING, at a basic, factual level, that whatever happens in society, good or bad, is a function of
our collective activity. So, if anyone, even the worst offender (a mass-murderer) goes awry, it's not merely his fault, but a collective failure to
prevent the formation of a person who would be motivated to do such a thing.