Mod The Sims - Is being burnt to death the right way to punish someone for stealing potatoes?

Mistermook

21st Jul 2011, 6:27 AM

Trying to equate the justice system expectations of modernized, industrialized societies and places where people are making something like a tenth of what the average family is in the US or Britain - with all the post colonial corruption issues of Africa, issues like ethnic violence, epidemic HIV and drought - really isn't feasible. If it happened in Canada or Iowa I'd be terribly upset, but in some places sometimes you're just as happy that the only justice happening isn't "people take stuff because they're able." Baby steps I guess. I'd love for everyone in the world to have access to perfect justice and legal respite, with consideration for criminals and victims alike, but sometimes, in some places, I unapologetically take what I can get.

maxon

21st Jul 2011, 1:31 PM

I'd guess that incident is related to the current famine in Kenya. It is horrible but I imagine it's partially driven by the extreme conditions there at the moment. People are desperate.

wickedblue

21st Jul 2011, 3:00 PM

to avoid situations like this i would just not steal any potatoes.

That reeks of victim blaming.

This is a terrible tragedy and certainly the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. The guy did commit a crime and I agree that consequences are in order but not burning him to death. That's beyond "cruel and unusual".

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 3:45 PM

Opinions like that of Sir David's usually come from those who have never been in a desperate situation and their sense of empathy has been permently impaired. Which would be worse than being burnt to death. I believe sociopath is the clinical term. Spoilt brat is the informal expression.

SimsLover50

21st Jul 2011, 5:03 PM

@SimsLover50 i didn't think of it like that,but its still inhumane

yes. murder for theft is overkill by all definitions. however, extreme punishment for theft is common in some countries where they are trying to make the punishment harsh to deter others. (cutting off a hand etc.).

Obviously this is morally wrong and overkill by most people's sense of justice.

However, if you had 3 potatoes to feed your family and someone came along and took them all, and your family would starve because of the actions of the thieves, how would you feel? Most would probably mob up and do something nasty to the thieves and at least drive them out of town.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 5:23 PM

I've been trying to find out more about this, and mostly I'm just getting the same video rehosted in a billion places (the potato theft claim I'm sure is just being repeated from whatever the original source was). I'm starting to see people mention that they were actually burned for being rapists, gay, or practicing witchcraft though. Someone on Reddit translated what was being said in the video and none of it was revelatory. Both men had their pants yanked down, so maybe that's a modicum of support for the rapist or gay hypotheses.

Who knows. I'm just saying, viral video from god-knows-where on the internet with specious sourcing?

Opinions like that of Sir David's usually come from those who have never been in a desperate situation and their sense of empathy has been permently impaired. Which would be worse than being burnt to death. I believe sociopath is the clinical term. Spoilt brat is the informal expression.
Those are some pretty high-handed assumptions you're making about someone based on a single sentence.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 5:33 PM

And I suspect I am not far off based on the comment. Apathy is the plague of the 21st century.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 5:47 PM

And I suspect I am not far off based on the comment. Apathy is the plague of the 21st century.
I interpreted his comment as tongue-in-cheek, personally.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between accusing someone of being apathetic and accusing them of lacking empathy and therefore being a sociopath. It's also just plain stupid to try assigning a psychological label to someone you've never met in real-life, based on a single sentence for which you have no indication of tone or body language, and even if you have the training and education to make such calls in the first place with any degree of accuracy, it would terribly unprofessional to do so in this context.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 6:10 PM

'Luckily I am far from a professional. I call people sociopaths all the time. Would be nice to get paid for it. The truly malicious tend to question whether the label is applicable. Others being true to the charge shrug it off as exaggeration.

There is a very fine line between being apathetic and lacking empathy. Do you think the nazis were born that way or was it a short slippery slope from not giving a **** to killing and maiming? Having a heart is often painful but the alternative is much worse.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 6:22 PM

'Luckily I am far from a professional. I call people sociopaths all the time. Would be nice to get paid for it. The truly malicious tend to question whether the label is applicable. Others being true to the charge shrug it off as exaggeration.
So, am I "truly malicious" for questioning your wanton use of a seriously insulting term?

Do you think the nazis were born that way or was it a short slippery slope from not giving a **** to killing and maiming?
Either way is a radical over-simplification of the combination of forces that created Nazis.

And I don't think that line is so fine. They may go hand-in-hand sometimes, but they aren't mutually inclusive. Someone may have empathy but still not really care to do anything (apathy). Someone may lack empathy for a situation but develop it when they themselves face it or otherwise experience some change of heart. A true sociopath will never feel empathy, though they may fake it.

ETA: Looking back at your first post... Just as it is fallacious to equate apathy with lack of empathy, it is also wrong to equate "sociopath" with "spoilt brat." Like, seriously. No, the latter is not an "informal" expression of the former. 'Sociopath' means more (and has more connotations) than simply "unpleasant person."

ETAx2: Though I guess this is all off-topic regardless. :|

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 6:52 PM

To clarify, my experience is that people that display sociopathic tendencies question themselves on whether the label is applicable. Also I didn't call you a sociopath. And I don't see it as seriously insulting. It is quite fitting in many cases.

If you have a better explanation for what created the nazis I'd like to hear it. Milgram's unrepeatable experiement showing that adherance to authority was the cause, had far too many questionable variables. Plus he was proven a fraud with his six degrees of seperation experiment. My theory is the strongest that I know of.

You obviously have far more faith in humanity than I do.

wickedblue

21st Jul 2011, 8:27 PM

Well, it's really quite unreasonable to casually throw around the word sociopath at people. Like you said, you are not a professional and as not-a-professional you are not qualified to diagnose someone with a mental illness. If you were a professional and qualified to do so, then it would still not be appropriate to make such a diagnosis over the internet.

It was apparent that the line was intended to be a joke. My comment in response was meant to indicate that victim-blaming jokes are not funny. You don't know the person behind that comment and it's nothing short of a malicious personal attack to start calling the commenter names because you don't like the comment.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 8:28 PM

If you have a better explanation for what created the nazis I'd like to hear it.
In the interest of brevity for this thread, I will instead suggest a book like this one (http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311274607&sr=8-1). I suppose one could make an argument that apathy was at the ultimate root of the decisions of the Nazi party--apathy towards a (few) particular class(es) of people, at least-- but again, I think that radically oversimplifies the interplay of loyalty, pride, desperation, ethnocentrism, and survival instinct that gave them power. Actually, I think that greatly over-simplifies the whole of the human condition, really... that all it takes is apathy for men to become brutal killing machines?

On the other hand, one could argue that apathy could have prevented the rise of Nazis. If no one cared that Germany and its people were screwed, they wouldn't have done anything. If they hadn't cared about their nation, their families, and their own livelihoods, they wouldn't have done anything. Most people aren't simply "apathetic," as in apathetic to everything and everyone. They're apathetic to specific issues, which is an important nuance when trying to write off people as evil.

Milgram's unrepeatable experiement showing that adherance to authority was the cause, had far too many questionable variables.
Unrepeatable? Which is why people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=y6GxIuljT3w) have (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/64/1/1/) repeated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kk4bz) it (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124838091) , right? (And it wasn't only deference to authority that was blamed, but also conformity and displacement of responsibility.)

Plus he was proven a fraud with his six degrees of seperation experiment.
I have seen that experiment under debate, but to say he was "proven" to be a "fraud" with it is not a statement I've seen any wide support for. His studies were flawed, to be sure, as sociological studies often are, but the basic premise has been observed via social networks these days. The biggest problem, both when Milgram did it and when modern researchers try it, is that people simply don't participate enough to provide enough data. Of the ones who do, the average of 6 steps is upheld. [1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3309137/It-really-is-a-small-world-we-live-in.html)] [2 (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/are-we-really-s.html)][3 (http://www.explainstuff.com/2009/04/03/six-degrees-of-separation-fact-or-fiction/)] [4 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103718.html)] By sociology experiment standards, that's not grounds for gtfo-of-academia. He certainly still carries more respect than, say, Freud.

You obviously have far more faith in humanity than I do.
I just don't think there's typically any one factor that makes people do "bad" things.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 9:06 PM

To not have empathy for someone described in the OP or your first reaction is to make a joke about it seems sociopathic to me. No I'm not a professional nor should anyone take anything I say as medical advice. I can't believe I just said that.

Milgram's experiment cannot be repeated because it is unethical. Nobody would attempt it. Yes some people tried to recreate it ethically, but that is not the same thing is it? These attempts raise more doubts than the original as to their effectiveness in achieving their aim.

The very premise of six degrees of seperation, that one could send a letter to one friend, who sends it to another and have it arrive at a particular person in a given city on the sixth post is utterly ridiculous. It was found that he never sent the letters. I'm sure it sounded fascinating in theory but in reality you would need to be fairly gullible, especially after being made aware it was a hoax.

ChloroformDreams

21st Jul 2011, 9:50 PM

@Josepina: You do realize that only approximately 2-5% of the population are estimated to be sociopaths, right? I'd wager a much larger percentage than that could be termed 'apathetic'. As Tempscire said, in no way does apathy = sociopathy. Sociopathy is characterized by a lack of conscience and guilt in addition to a lack of empathy. People can be apathetic and still be moral and experience feelings of guilt.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 9:56 PM

To not have empathy for someone described in the OP or your first reaction is to make a joke about it seems sociopathic to me.
Lack of empathy is only one sign of sociopathy. See also: gallows humor or black humor. It is, actually, a fairly normal reaction to try to find humor in a situation instead of sorrow.

Milgram's experiment cannot be repeated because it is unethical. Nobody would attempt it. Yes some people tried to recreate it ethically, but that is not the same thing is it? These attempts raise more doubts than the original as to their effectiveness in achieving their aim.
...okay? It's not exactly the same thing, no, but that doesn't mean the replications are useless or carry no implications or corroborations for the original experiment. They've all been very consistent in their results, as well. More doubts for you, or more doubts for the people testing it? Cite your answers.

The very premise of six degrees of seperation, that one could send a letter to one friend, who sends it to another and have it arrive at a particular person in a given city on the sixth post is utterly ridiculous. It was found that he never sent the letters. I'm sure it sounded fascinating in theory but in reality you would need to be fairly gullible, especially after being made aware it was a hoax.
It's an average of 6 (a little over, actually). And I sure hope you have a citation that "he never sent the letters" because I can't find a single thing to support that. Further, there (again) have been other, more recent attempts at testing this, which I linked in my previous post. :faceslap: It is not solely a theory. It isn't universally true that everyone is only 6 six degrees from anyone else in the world, but neither it is utterly false.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 10:07 PM

That is why I asked the question about nazis. A diagnosis of sociopathic personality disorder requires that a person have symptoms in early childhood. It does not require that a person commit murder. Now regarding the nazis who controlled concentration camps, killing millions, could this not be considered sociopathy, despite the fact they were likely not all diagnosible as such?

So we have sociopaths and non-sociopaths who engage in sociopathic acts. Which would mean, if you are still with me, that ordinary people can and do become sociopaths. What would be the catalyst, or bridge if you prefer, that leads one to becoming a sociopath? I posit that apathy is how odinary people can observe and then engage in horrific acts themselves. Tempscire thinks that apathy would make one less likely to behave sociopathically because well.. they wouldn't give enough of a poop to do so, and that a multitude of other factors would be involved.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 10:23 PM

I am allowed to have and state an opinion on studies without needing anyone's approval lol. I think anyone reading studies should think for themselves on the data and not wait for someone else to give them their opinion.

In the Milgram experiment the first question is regarding the fact it was entirely staged. Would the same result occur if the shockee were not an actor? The applicants were being badgered and place under a highly stressful situation. Would the same result occur if the applicant had days, weeks or years to contimplate their actions? The experiment is dependent on an awful lot of ifs.

I misremembered on the six degrees of seperation. I should have said the letters never arrived at their destination.

"Judith Kleinfeld, a professor psychology at Alaska Fairbanks University, went back to Milgram's original research notes and found something surprising. It turned out, she told us, that 95% of the letters sent out had failed to reach the target. Not only did they fail to get there in six steps, they failed to get there at all. Milgram was a giant figure in his world of research, but here was evidence that the claim he was famously associated with was not supported by his experiments."

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 10:25 PM

So we have sociopaths and non-sociopaths who engage in sociopathic acts. Which would mean, if you are still with me, that ordinary people can and do become sociopaths. What would be the catalyst, or bridge if you prefer, that leads one to becoming a sociopath? I posit that apathy is how odinary people can observe and then engage in horrific acts themselves.
There's a difference between stating that people desensitize themselves to atrocities by becoming apathetic and suggesting that becoming apathetic is the start of "short slippery slope" (implying inevitability) to "to killing and maiming." Further, in your example of Nazis, I promise that, in fact, each Nazi was still a human and not a completely heartless murder machine. They were apathetic to the prisoners they abused; they were not all-around apathetic (as true sociopaths would be), because people are complex and their lives are complex and they go out of their way to rationalize all sorts of things to themselves.

Tempscire thinks that apathy would make one less likely to behave sociopathically because well.. they wouldn't give enough of a poop to do so,
No, I threw that out there as a contrary thought exercise that is also firmly hinged in my assertion that it takes more than mere apathy to make people do bad things and that the rise of Nazis is a complex social phenomenon that cannot be reduced to the simplistic terms you set for it.
--

Do you have citations for me on the way? Edit: I guess not.

I am allowed to have and state an opinion on studies without needing anyone's approval lol. I think anyone reading studies should think for themselves on the data and not wait for someone else to give them their opinion.
Who said you needed someone's approval? What you DO need, however, is evidence. It's intellectually lazy to throw around a bunch of assertions as if they were fact without providing any kind of citations to support them...especially when there's evidence against your opinions.

In the Milgram experiment the first question is regarding the fact it was entirely staged. Would the same result occur if the shockee were not an actor?
The participants did not know the shockee was an actor. They were in separate rooms. All they knew was another person was screaming in "pain" and begging them to stop the experiment. Most sociological experiments are staged in some way, anyhow, because it's very hard to observe and document natural situations extensively. Now, sociology is a very soft science, but that does not in and of itself invalidate data derived from such studies.

The applicants were being badgered and place under a highly stressful situation. Would the same result occur if the applicant had days, weeks or years to contimplate their actions? The experiment is dependent on an awful lot of ifs.
That's...kinda part of the point. That people are told to do something they're uncomfortable with (though not all were-- some people had no problems carrying on to the end), and in the face of an authoritative figure telling them "The experiment must go on" (no threats to them personally or anything like that), they went ahead and did it. The conclusion being that they trust the authority to be correct and in any even, they're "just following orders" and not really to blame.

I misremembered on the six degrees of seperation. I should have said the letters never arrived at their destination. ..."95%"...
That figure is incorrect. 21% of the letters reached the destination. (See my 4th link on this topic in the previous post.) I've already addressed the common participation flaw in sociological experiments, as well as alternate approaches to it. ETA: Well, actually, I suppose I'll back off of that assertion for the moment, since I'm sure the 21% figure comes from Milgram's reports, which Kleinfeld is asserting are fabricated.

SimsLover50

21st Jul 2011, 10:49 PM

The german situation is a complex one, as germany had lots of problems both economical and social after the war and there was quite a bit of resentment and bad feeling amongst the people, so there really isn't a one-sized fits all reason for the rise of nazism, but I suspect sanctions against germany did not help matters.

But..People have long been apathetic about the suffering of others who are 'not like them.' or 'not part of the group' it is a survival trait, and something sadly that happens amongst humans. For thousands and thousands of years capturing, enslaving others and taking their women was human norm and it still goes on! Its just tribal warfare, much the same as mongols vs. persians etc. And this attitude is quite alive today, sady.

Even in the bible, which many feel is the word of god, it is ok to slaughter those foreign people who don't worship like the early xians do. It wasn't that long ago that many races weren't even considered human.

Sadly, we aren't that evolved yet, even though our attitude is modern in many ways, it wasn't too long ago that we were much worse. Those attitudes do not disappear overnight. Its easy to look back and say oh, those nazis are sociopaths, but, umm... Not really. It wasn't too long ago humans took slaves, married children, forced their wives, and beat their families. That's the way they were....

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 10:54 PM

I did not imply inevitability. I implied ease in which the transition might take place. I really don't know how you could make that promise.

Again with the Milgram experiment, of course they didn't know but is a scream from an actor exactly the same as a person screaming in genuine pain. The studies were conducted at the time of the trials for nazi war criminals and was an attempt to understand how ordinary Germans could commit such gross acts. If the killing of millions took place in one day with a scientist repeatedly asserting "You must kill the jews" then this experiment would be in some way relevant.

It is not lazy. I do not have the means to conduct these experiments myself and again you expect me to rely on other imperfect human beings to decide my opinion for me. I can make logic based arguments on every study I read.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 11:03 PM

So basically if a person bruttally kills someone then it is sociopathy. If a person brutally kills someone their government does not like then it is not sociopathy. The difference is a primitive "us vs. them" mentality. You have an interesting take.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 11:06 PM

I actually read Kleinfeld's paper (http://www.judithkleinfeld.com/ar_bigworld.html) and that 95% figure does not appear in it. Actually, her paper notes that 64/296 letter chains were completed, which works out to 21%, not the 29% she declares, which leaves me all kinds of confused. Most of the other studies she cites are all from '70s, with one from 2000, and there's zero mention of the various analyses done of social networks, IM networks, etc.

Again with the Milgram experiment, of course they didn't know but is a scream from an actor exactly the same as a person screaming in genuine pain. The studies were conducted at the time of the trials for nazi war criminals and was an attempt to understand how ordinary Germans could commit such gross acts. If the killing of millions took place in one day with a scientist repeatedly asserting "You must kill the jews" then this experiment would be in some way relevant.
You're looking for a more direct connection between study and reality than can be done. The study identifies a trend in behavior; that behavior can be reasonably extrapolated to other situations. Each participant didn't shock millions (or even dozens) of subjects each day. In my link below, one of the contrary opinions of the study stated is the significance of the gradual ramping up of the voltage. Keep in mind that Nazis didn't set out to exterminate all Jews right from the get-go: it was a gradual process of identification, then concentration, then deportation and imprisonment, then, eventually, mass execution.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/19/milgram.experiment.obedience/) to a story on a modernized version of the experiment and the exact changes made to make it more ethical.

(And if it's not relevant, why bring it up at all? The Six Degrees thing is even less relevant. This whole conversation only started because you refused to accept that it might be inappropriate or at least incorrect to call someone on a debate forum a sociopath, and you've been throwing out all kinds of loosely-connected arguments ever since. At least the empathy discussion was relevant, but now we're suddenly debating the causes of Nazism? And you still aren't bringing in evidence or even addressing half the arguments I've presented to you. :wtf: )

It is not lazy. I do not have the means to conduct these experiments myself and again you expect me to rely on other imperfect human beings to decide my opinion for me. I can make logic based arguments on every study I read.
I expect you to rely on imperfect human beings who have spent years working in their field and publishing peer-reviewed papers and have had their experiments repeated by others. And also to actually cite those studies that you have supposedly based your arguments on. There's forming your own opinions, and then there's accepting that you are not and cannot be an expert in everything.

wickedblue

21st Jul 2011, 11:19 PM

SimsLover50

21st Jul 2011, 11:19 PM

First you must view people as human to consider killing them wrong. It wasn't long ago and in still is in some countries racial minorities, women and children and gays were considered lesser beings or ok to kill if they displeased you. This still happens in countries where infantcide and other types of murder occurs regularly.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 11:28 PM

In short you believe that this study is an accurate method for studying inhumanity to fellow man. I think it is inherently flawed for reasons stated.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 11:31 PM

I have no idea how you concluded I was replying to you WickedBlue.

Yeah so it's not sociopathy if it is socially condoned. Great logic Simslover.

Tempscire

21st Jul 2011, 11:38 PM

In short you believe that this study is an accurate method for studying inhumanity to fellow man. I think it is inherently flawed for reasons stated.
And I think your reasons for dismissing it are inherently flawed, for reasons already stated. I also think it's very obvious you aren't any kind of social scientist and that you don't understand sociological experiment procedures.

/still waiting for citations and counter-arguments... (Hint: even when you're arguing opinions, you still need to find evidence to support them, especially when you're single-handedly dismissing psychological definitions, still-broadly-supported sociology experiments, and historical observation.)

Nvenya

21st Jul 2011, 11:40 PM

Isn't this all a bit off topic? At the very least a mention of the men burned over stealing some potatoes ought be mentioned. It is Africa, so something like this doesn't surprise me. At the same time we really don't know the whole story. Perhaps stealing potatoes was not all they did.

Not quite certain how this huge argument has gone on so long over a tongue in cheek comment, especially in regards to sociopathy. As for the Nazi regime, well considering Hitler himself wasn't even a sociopath I am not really certain what point is being made by bringing it up.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 11:41 PM

My last post was the hint that I'm bored of discussing Milgram with you.

And here comes the off-topic police.

ChloroformDreams

21st Jul 2011, 11:44 PM

I have no idea how you concluded I was replying to you WickedBlue.

Yeah so it's not sociopathy if it is socially condoned. Great logic Simslover.
That's not what Simslover was saying either. You seem to be arguing that any heinous act of violence that could be attributed to sociopaths should be attributed to sociopaths. I believe what Simslover was trying to say was that not everyone in Nazi Germany was a sociopath. Not because the government condoned their behaviour, but because there were other contributing factors that affected it. If you've done any reading about conformity, you'll know that people can be pressured to do things they believe are wrong.
Nazism is an extreme example. Many nazis were in the position where they had to decide between harming/killing an innocent person and becoming ostracized or killed themselves. I'm not trying to justify their behaviour, just saying that their actions were motivated by more than a simple desire to harm others.

Josepina

21st Jul 2011, 11:49 PM

Actually I believe you are the first to concede that any actions committed by any nazis could be described as sociopathic

el_flel

21st Jul 2011, 11:55 PM

I have no idea how you concluded I was replying to you WickedBlue.Quite clearly she didn't. She was responding to a comment you made in a public debate.

Considering that the prevalence of psychopathy amongst the general public is less than 1% I think it would be a pretty big coincidence for every single Nazi to have it. Not that this has anything to do with the original topic, a more likely explanation is that the Nazis employed moral disengagement (http://www.sociology.uiowa.edu/nsfworkshop/JournalArticleResources/Bandura_MoralDisengagement_1999.pdf) methods to reduce the feelings of personal responsibility, such as dehumanisation and displacement of responsibility onto the authority figures in charge. There is also obedience to authority and conformity to consider, as well as their own prejudice. Not all murder can be attributed to psychopathy.

ETA: Psychopath is the clinical term, not sociopath.

SimsLover50

22nd Jul 2011, 12:13 AM

I have no idea how you concluded I was replying to you WickedBlue.

Yeah so it's not sociopathy if it is socially condoned. Great logic Simslover.

Why is it neccessary to be sarcastic?

To me a sociopath has no conscience whatsoever under any cicumstance. Many folk who commit attrocities in war or against an enemy tribe for instance- do not have lack of conscience when dealing with their own people. That doesn't mean what crime they commit isn't wrong, but simply that there are other reasons than mental illness such as sociological, cultural, or other to do what they do.

Tempscire

22nd Jul 2011, 12:16 AM

My last post was the hint that I'm bored of discussing Milgram with you.
And all the other topics you've avoided addressing thus far...too "boring" as well?

Actually I believe you are the first to concede that any actions committed by any nazis could be described as sociopathic
As one of the criteria factors for antisocial personality disorder is a failure to conform to social norms, and the social norms in Germany at the time were to persecute Jews and other undesirables, no, they weren't sociopathic. They also did not exhibit compulsive deceit, impulsiveness, a total disregard for safety (I'm sure they cared for their own safety and that of their comrades), irresponsibility, or a total lack of remorse (perhaps they did or did not feel bad about the camps, some of them, but they probably felt bad about misfortune concerning their friends and loved ones). (DSM-IV (http://www.accg.net/antisocial.htm) entry)

They could be considered sociopathic in a loose sense per some dictionary definitions that bring up, say, a lack of social conscience, but mostly it refers to the mental condition, which Nazis, as a whole, do not satisfy.

Sociopathic is not synonymous with "does icky things." Saying Nazis were not sociopaths is not the same as saying Nazis did nothing wrong. Nazis did inhumane things. Nazis did criminal things. Nazis did cruel things. Nazis did not, technically, do sociopathic things.

wickedblue

22nd Jul 2011, 12:18 AM

Ellen is right. I didn't think it was directed at me. And it stands that I think you need to read the comment again because you clearly did not understand what was said.

This has gotten way off topic but I think it is actually relevant. Not all murderers are sociopaths nor all sociopaths murderers and I am certainly tired of the two being linked.

And now back to the original point I attempted to make: it is not okay to resort to personal attacks, name-calling or internet diagnosis of mental disorders.

ChloroformDreams

22nd Jul 2011, 12:28 AM

Actually I believe you are the first to concede that any actions committed by any nazis could be described as sociopathic
Where did I "concede" Nazis were sociopathic? :wtf:

Josepina

22nd Jul 2011, 12:49 AM

So if this were a bygone era, where killing for not following the herd was acceptable, some of you would be contemplating killing me right now. :gjob: Real fine line between apathy and sociopathy.

el_flel

22nd Jul 2011, 12:57 AM

:blink: ... What?

wickedblue

22nd Jul 2011, 1:04 AM

So if this were a bygone era, where killing for not following the herd was acceptable, some of you would be contemplating killing me right now. :gjob: Real fine line between apathy and sociopathy.

Um, excuse me? You are seriously going to in all seriousness, I presume, suggest that those who disagree with you are contemplating your murder?

That is really reaching there.

You called someone a sociopath because zie made an inappropriate joke. A joke that is, in our society, something that is normally accepted because it's pretty rare for anyone to think critically about what other people are saying. It's one thing to say the joke is inappropriate and maybe have a discussion about why you think it's inappropriate, it's wholly another thing to call someone a sociopath. Attack the idea, not the person.

And we who have stayed and discussed that with you are now being equated with murderers? No.

Josepina

22nd Jul 2011, 1:12 AM

It has been my argument all along. Yes I see most humans as a short step from behaving like complete animals. 1% sociopaths is vastly underestimated in my opinion.

wickedblue

22nd Jul 2011, 1:14 AM

I think you are intentionally derailing just to be the center of attention. So, I vote for ignore.

Nice discussing things with you.

Now can we can get back to the topic already?

el_flel

22nd Jul 2011, 1:24 AM

That's probably because you seem to misunderstand what psychopathy really means. Psychopathy is a mental disorder characterised primarily by lack of a conscience and has a prevalence rate of less than 1% amongst the general public. Sociopathy is a generic, blanket term for a variety of different personality disorders which all share the element of antisocial behaviour. Sociopathy will have a higher rate than less than 1% but that's because it covers multiple disorders.

SuicidiaParasidia

23rd Jul 2011, 12:11 AM

I don't believe in captial punishment. But likely potatoes are the only thing a family may have to eat, if the country is poor and starving. So depending on the situation- who the thieves are, their age, their priors, who they stole from and why, the punishment should fit the crime. If they stole because they are starving children, is different then thugs stealing grandma's last potato so they can get high or sell 'em on the black market.

Burning someone is never right, obviously, nor is serious jailtime for a petty offense, unless someone is harmed or they are chronically doing so.

...who gets high off of potatoes?
/smartass

depends. it might not be a big deal to us, but in kenya, they dont have the same availability to resources that we do. we're privileged. our country has the highest obesity rate out there; you can bet nobody here is starving to death unless theyve got ahold of some meth.

i imagine stealing potatoes in kenya would be the equivalent to stealing precious water from someone during a several-year drought.
very serious.
very uncool.
punishable by death, and rightfully so, as water during a drought is as vital to one's survival as food during a famine. why should these cretins, who have showed us through their actions that they have no regard for other human life, be granted leniency? by stealing those potatoes they have said they are more important than the people they steal from, and that, ironically, qualifies them as expendable during a time of great hardship.

ideally, the potatoes would be shared and all would go skipping home hand-in-hand and food would magically present itself in the future.
but wake up, people. this is serious shit for those who are not so thoroughly privileged as you for those who face starvation daily, who have to ration their food carefully just to wake up another day, a bag of potatoes isnt something to be laughed at.

also: rude thread hijacking is rude and enablers are enabling.

Rarr

26th Jul 2011, 1:53 AM

In some middle east countries, something like this does exist. Its called Shariah Law. But if you steal something, you have your hands cut off. If you are a woman, forget leaving the house or buying anything without your husbands permission.

Undercovers_Agent

26th Jul 2011, 11:29 PM

I was just of Facebook and my friend posted this link of two men,drenched in gasoline and then burnt in flames,all for stealing a sack of potatoes :( They are both from Kenya and i'm not sure if this is allowed there but there really must be a better way of dealing with this situation.Isn't this supposed to be a crime?

Let's say you're in a big industrialized modern society, and a friend of yours is caught pick pocketing. If tehy marched your friend to times square, tied him to a lamp post, and covered him in gasoline and lit him on fire, would you want to pickpocket someone?

Same principle, it's a deterant, and I believe that modern societies should use public himiliation as a tool, seriously, who wants to be stripped to their underwear chained to a wooden light pole and be forced to walk through main street? I wouldn't.

I'd hate to sound like a monster here, but I would not mind for some two bit crook to be taken out and burned at the stake, it sends a message, and chances are some guy looking for quick cash is going to think twice before dipping into my pocket.

Mistermook

27th Jul 2011, 1:04 AM

The thing about burning people to death (in normal, civilized circumstances) for picking pockets is that on one side you've got a guy stealing - not even a really significant amount, and on the other hand you've someone being killed in one of the most excruciating ways most people can imagine.

As I've said, I think circumstances are possibly such that in some places stealing potatoes is a death sentence in practical fact rather than explicit, so it's not impossible to imagine such a thing as justifiable (if still unpleasant) simply because starving to death and burning to death are comparable levels of victimization. But burning someone to death in a civilized society isn't just impossibly wrong because we fail to meet the rationalizations of circumstances, it's wrong because what it would say about society is that we, as a society kill people for petty crimes in horrific manners. It's a level of disparity that's inherently against everything most Western democratic societies proclaim themselves for.

So yeah, I hate for you to sound like a monster too - but you do sound like a monster.

Undercovers_Agent

27th Jul 2011, 2:46 AM

The thing about burning people to death (in normal, civilized circumstances) for picking pockets is that on one side you've got a guy stealing - not even a really significant amount, and on the other hand you've someone being killed in one of the most excruciating ways most people can imagine.

So yeah, I hate for you to sound like a monster too - but you do sound like a monster.

I wanted to get here. This is where I wanted to ask, "What's civilized and what's not" to the Kenyans, burning two guys alive could certainly seem civil, there really is no guide on being ethical, because from how I see it, ethics are just a commonly accepted belief of ideas. Sending someone to county jail for 6 months for stealing a bag of potatos may seem unethical to the Kenyans that burned the guys.

And as for monster, don't worry bout it.

Nekowolf

27th Jul 2011, 1:41 PM

@Undercovers_Agent

I don't think it's a question of ethics. It's a question of a violent and unstable nature in Kenya. I haven't said anything about this, because I know this is getting off topic. But Kenya? I am not surprised. They still hunt witches, so I found it coincidental that this about a burning. It doesn't matter what age you are, you are exorcised (and exorcising can be horrific), driven out of your home, beaten, stoned, killed.

I don't think there's ethics at work here. It's more like sheer vigilantism for the sake of revenge. And it doesn't do anything, it won't make people think twice. Desperation is and always will be desperation. Poverty will always be poverty.

RoseCity

27th Jul 2011, 4:22 PM

I wanted to get here. This is where I wanted to ask, "What's civilized and what's not" to the Kenyans, burning two guys alive could certainly seem civil, there really is no guide on being ethical, because from how I see it, ethics are just a commonly accepted belief of ideas. Sending someone to county jail for 6 months for stealing a bag of potatos may seem unethical to the Kenyans that burned the guys.

And as for monster, don't worry bout it.
When I first saw this thread topic 'Is being burnt to death the right way to punish someone for stealing potatoes?' I thought well, here's a topic that you can't really debate because everyone would agree that the answer is no.
I didn't try to watch the video because I don't want to see someone set on fire. I think 'ethics' is the study of the finer points of right and wrong - when is 'ethics' ever a consideration in mob rule situations? As for 'civilized', sending someone to the county jail is more civilized because it takes place under the rule of law(which I believe they do have in Kenya), be it common, civil or religious and implies that there was a trial. Yes, the rule of law is flawed in most places, but a lynch mob is a lynch mob no matter what country it happens to take place in. An event that can't be described in the same sentence with words like 'ethics' and 'civilized'.