Dylann Roof

[Ginkgo]

Tom, are you talking about psychological behaviorism and political apologists?

[Ginkgo]

Tom, are you talking about psychological behaviorism and political apologists such as Mr. Davison?

[tbieter]

Tom, are you talking about psychological behaviorism and political apologists such as Mr. Davison?

Yes. I'm talking his description of determinism as stated in his article.
If humans lack free will, are they not like machines?

[Ginkgo]

Tom, are you talking about psychological behaviorism and political apologists such as Mr. Davison?

Yes. I'm talking his description of determinism as stated in his article.
If humans lack free will, are they not like machines?

Well, in that case I think it is a cop out on the part of the author. Something unique to American politics.

[Ginkgo]

If humans lack free will, are they not like machines?[/color]

Sorry missed that bit. Yes, you could say they are like machines in terms of their capacity to learn. As far as I can see they advocate strong determinism.

[tbieter]

"A behaviorist such as I is clearer: There is no such thing as free will. People do what they do because of reinforced behaviors from their own experiences, or because of some biological condition present at birth or acquired typically in the early years of life. Since, therefore, behavior is either biologically determined or environmentally reinforced, there can be no justification for capital punishment except in some crude effort to make the Dylann Roofs of our nation an extreme example of a condition that abides in the nation as a whole, thereby dissuading us all from our worst behavioral potential." (Emphasis added)
http://www.startribune.com/south-caroli ... 309394261/
Therefore, Roof is not personally responsible. He is but a machine. It would be unjust to punish him. He should be set free.

Here is the author's blog:
http://newsalemeducation.blogspot.com/2 ... 0822429993

Gary Davison had replied:

"A bit more elaborated, what I particularly oppose is capital punishment, on many grounds. I do not oppose incarceration as a means to keep this disturbed person from harming other people, and a society does need a range of clearly stated consequences for certain antisocial behaviors. But we need to be clear that our objective is to deal with evil behavior, as oppose to an evil person. The latter characterization implies that the person acted in an evil manner as a matter of personal choice when in fact she or he is acting strictly upon biological imperatives or conditioned responses. Our approach in addressing such behavior should be to redirect it toward acceptable patterns of conduct via a program of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and aversive consequences (punishment). Only if our program is well-designed enough to achieve the desired goal of redirecting the behavior should the person be released from incarcerated circumstances."

I posted a reply this morning:
http://newsalemeducation.blogspot.com/2 ... 1395029963
What do you think?

[tbieter]

"A behaviorist such as I is clearer: There is no such thing as free will. People do what they do because of reinforced behaviors from their own experiences, or because of some biological condition present at birth or acquired typically in the early years of life. Since, therefore, behavior is either biologically determined or environmentally reinforced, there can be no justification for capital punishment except in some crude effort to make the Dylann Roofs of our nation an extreme example of a condition that abides in the nation as a whole, thereby dissuading us all from our worst behavioral potential." (Emphasis added)
http://www.startribune.com/south-caroli ... 309394261/
Therefore, Roof is not personally responsible. He is but a machine. It would be unjust to punish him. He should be set free.

Here is the author's blog:
http://newsalemeducation.blogspot.com/2 ... 0822429993

Gary Davison had replied:

"A bit more elaborated, what I particularly oppose is capital punishment, on many grounds. I do not oppose incarceration as a means to keep this disturbed person from harming other people, and a society does need a range of clearly stated consequences for certain antisocial behaviors. But we need to be clear that our objective is to deal with evil behavior, as oppose to an evil person. The latter characterization implies that the person acted in an evil manner as a matter of personal choice when in fact she or he is acting strictly upon biological imperatives or conditioned responses. Our approach in addressing such behavior should be to redirect it toward acceptable patterns of conduct via a program of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and aversive consequences (punishment). Only if our program is well-designed enough to achieve the desired goal of redirecting the behavior should the person be released from incarcerated circumstances."

I posted a reply this morning:
http://newsalemeducation.blogspot.com/2 ... 1395029963
What do you think?

Here is what I posted this morning:
"Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGICA I, 83, I

As a public defender, I once represented a fellow who earned his livelihood as a professional burglar. He bragged that he made a good, tax-free income; he could sleep late every morning; given the endless supply, he could live with a divorcee or a single mother and leave whenever they bitched or talked marriage; he asked me to plea bargain, and had no problem doing a couple of years in prison on those rare occasions when he got caught; he clearly stated that he would continue in the future with his burglary. He said that I was a fool to pay taxes, to submit to the constraints of law practice and to marriage.

How should the state deal with him?

[tbieter]

Does Man lack free will?

[thedoc]

Does Man lack free will?

Prove it empirically.

[tbieter]

Does Man lack free will?

Prove it empirically/quote]
I believe Man has free will, but Davison Does not. He explicitly claims to be a determinist and holds that Dylann Roofs should be released. I am amazed at his ARTICLE and its implications. Im amazed that no one Sesma to be interested.

[thedoc]

Does Man lack free will?

Prove it empirically/quote]
I believe Man has free will, but Davison Does not. He explicitly claims to be a determinist and holds that Dylann Roofs should be released. I am amazed at his ARTICLE and its implications. Im amazed that no one Sesma to be interested.

I would agree about free will, and see that the whole issue comes down to what influences you will allow for free will to be true. A hard determinist will count any influence as being determinist, but if you allow some influences to be compatible with free will, the situation changes. As long as Dylann Roofs maintains his attitude towards others he should at least be separated form the rest of society.

[Hobbes' Choice]

"A behaviorist such as I is clearer: There is no such thing as free will. People do what they do because of reinforced behaviors from their own experiences, or because of some biological condition present at birth or acquired typically in the early years of life. Since, therefore, behavior is either biologically determined or environmentally reinforced, there can be no justification for capital punishment except in some crude effort to make the Dylann Roofs of our nation an extreme example of a condition that abides in the nation as a whole, thereby dissuading us all from our worst behavioral potential." (Emphasis added)
http://www.startribune.com/south-caroli ... 309394261/
Therefore, Roof is not personally responsible. He is but a machine. It would be unjust to punish him. He should be set free.

Here is the author's blog:
http://newsalemeducation.blogspot.com/2 ... 0822429993

Why is relevant to Dylan Roof?

[thedoc]

Execution seems to be very effective in removing a person from society and preventing them from doing additional harm to others.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Execution seems to be very effective in removing a person from society and preventing them from doing additional harm to others.

Not really. Execution seems to be the best way to punish the innocent without appeal, foster a sense of the worthlessness of life, the powerlessness of the individual against the forces of the government, and in general give vent to the worst instincts of human kind, revenge and hatred.
... and Death Row, far from saving money, works our far more expensive than regular incarceration, for numerous reasons.

There is also the factor of the latitude given to fugitives ' behaviour since there is no greater sentence, and one might as well be "hung for a sheep as for a lamb".