M1911
Moderator
The mindset of someone who has decided to kill as many people as possible and die in the process is rather different from the mindset of the vast majority of people.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
"Under the influence"
- Thread starter kalash
- Start date
The mindset of someone who has decided to kill as many people as possible and die in the process is rather different from the mindset of the vast majority of people.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Which brings me back to my original point: morals play more into it than fear of punishment.
You guys just made my point lol.
M1911
Moderator
No, I think there is something different going on than "morals" when a person decides to kill as many people as possible and die in the process.
I don't think these guys problems were a lack of morals:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,574
- Likes
- 33,650
When you are dealing with big things like not being a serial killer, you are probably right.
When it comes to little things like paying your vehicle excise tax bill, it's fear of punishment.
Do you get your car inspected because you don't want to deal with a citation and having your insurance rates increased, or because you want someone to look over the car and tell you if it is safe? Absent the fear of punishment, would you pay for the inspection service if it only resulted in a report with no legal standing rather than a sticker that helps you avoid punishment? If you would not pay for an inspection absent the state requirement, you are complying out of fear of punishment.
Last edited:
Fear of punishment does play a role, sure, but only to a degree. Yes, we have speed limits and punishment for breaking them - yet most people break those laws. Yes, we have DWI laws - yet many people will have one too many. Yes, we have drug laws - yet a ton of people get high. To me, the number of people that are breaking these laws indicates that the laws aren't working.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,458
- Likes
- 17,677
Depends on what "Not working" means. If you mean they're not modifying the behavior, you're right. But if the presence of the law is to exert control by the .gov, well, that's another matter.
The question is: do you get rid of the laws that nobody follows (implying that the .gov was wrong to enact them), or strengthen them, and up the enforcement .... think Cartman on his Big Wheel, demanding Respect for his Authoritay!
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Not paying your excise tax bill is a completely different category than getting behind the wheel drunk and killing three people. Someone who is ok with getting behind the wheel drunk is showing a lack of value for others on the road, so a "zero drink" law would not change their actions. They are going to do it anyways. To those people, their value system ints waved by punishment.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
No, I think there is something different going on than "morals" when a person decides to kill as many people as possible and die in the process.
I don't think these guys problems were a lack of morals:
morals, value system, whatever you want to call it, and whatever fuels it, does drive these people, IMHO. Their lack of respect for humanity drove them to commit their crimes, and in essence, the fear of punishment did sway them.
M1911
Moderator
No, I think psychosis was involved.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,574
- Likes
- 33,650
I believe that a lot of social drinkers modify their behavior, either by drinking less or not driving, because of fear of OUI enforcement rather than a sense "they cannot drive". Not much of anything deters the actual problem drinker - I'm thinking of the person who has 2 drinks with dinner and passes on the third due to the OUI risk.
But then, I may be wrong, since this is just a guess.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
which comes through in their values.....
M1911
Moderator
"Under the influence"
No, not all.
A rational person can decide to change their values and can control their impulses so that they act in accordance with their values.
A psychotic person is not in touch with reality and not completely in control of their behavior. They may act completely against the values that they hold when they are not having a psychotic episode. Their psychosis separates them from reality.
No, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.
But there is a difference between a psychotic person and one who is simply amoral.
No, not all.
A rational person can decide to change their values and can control their impulses so that they act in accordance with their values.
A psychotic person is not in touch with reality and not completely in control of their behavior. They may act completely against the values that they hold when they are not having a psychotic episode. Their psychosis separates them from reality.
No, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.
But there is a difference between a psychotic person and one who is simply amoral.
dcmdon
NES Member
Great point. I don't need the Government's agents to tell me my car is safe. I drive my two kids around in it. I'll make damn sure its safe all on my own.
But every couple of years I pony up $35 purely to avoid hassles.
Sometimes failing has nothing to do with actual safety. My older car failed last year because of a burned out light bulb. The car has a total of 6 tail light bulbs. 3 on each side. So the bad side was down to only two.
