You Are Two
-
Isn't death just an eventuality not exactly a punishment? Punishment assumes intent.
-
Damn, this is getting deep.
-
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
Isn't death just an eventuality not exactly a punishment? Punishment assumes intent.
Maybe he means premature death? Do you mean premature death Scott?
-
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
Isn't death just an eventuality not exactly a punishment? Punishment assumes intent.
So you think that executions are not punishment?
-
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
Isn't death just an eventuality not exactly a punishment? Punishment assumes intent.
So you think that executions are not punishment?
Execution and death are different. Execution is typically a penalty for a crime. Death is just death. I could die tomorrow and it wouldn't necessarily be a punishment.
-
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
Isn't death just an eventuality not exactly a punishment? Punishment assumes intent.
So you think that executions are not punishment?
Execution and death are different. Execution is typically a penalty for a crime. Death is just death. I could die tomorrow and it wouldn't necessarily be a punishment.
But if a doctor effectively took your life as a means of "dealing" with a crime or did the same as a means of "dealing" with the doctor disliking your personality... you would consider that to just be death and not a punishment? In both cases, it is the result of a person in authority over you disliking you enough to take your life or effectively take it. It is a punishment for not living up to society's or the doctor's personal desires.
What makes one punishment any more or less than the other?
-
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
Isn't death just an eventuality not exactly a punishment? Punishment assumes intent.
So you think that executions are not punishment?
Execution and death are different. Execution is typically a penalty for a crime. Death is just death. I could die tomorrow and it wouldn't necessarily be a punishment.
But if a doctor effectively took your life as a means of "dealing" with a crime or did the same as a means of "dealing" with the doctor disliking your personality... you would consider that to just be death and not a punishment? In both cases, it is the result of a person in authority over you disliking you enough to take your life or effectively take it. It is a punishment for not living up to society's or the doctor's personal desires.
What makes one punishment any more or less than the other?
the things mentioned in this post are punishments if someone is exerting their will over your own. But you used the word death above, not murder, which is basically what the two items above are (though if your a criminal and put to death by the state, that's considered justifiable murder), things that are not simply death. Sure the result is the same, but the means aren't.
Why were people's brains cut apart like this? For punishment for committing a crime?
-
@Dashrender said in You Are Two:
Why were people's brains cut apart like this? For punishment for committing a crime?
Mostly because doctors felt that they did not conform to societal norms as desired by the doctors. Basically another way to describe committing a crime only one without actual laws written around it.
The results are the same in both cases... the government feels that the person does not conform to acceptable norms or standards and the "cure" is death or a death like state.
-
Some people, at the beginning, got this treatment because of seizures and the hope was that it would stop the seizures, which it did... by basically killing the patient but in such a way that outside observers were not totally sure if the person was still there or not.
Later on they started doing it to people who were depressed, angry, overly excited, or for any number of "abnormalities."
-
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@Dashrender said in You Are Two:
Why were people's brains cut apart like this? For punishment for committing a crime?
Mostly because doctors felt that they did not conform to societal norms as desired by the doctors. Basically another way to describe committing a crime only one without actual laws written around it.
The results are the same in both cases... the government feels that the person does not conform to acceptable norms or standards and the "cure" is death or a death like state.
Interesting, under what law did the surgery take place?
-
@Dashrender said in You Are Two:
Interesting, under what law did the surgery take place?
Pretty much the same laws that we have now... the laws that let doctors do pretty much anything that they want. Over time, some dangerous and obviously criminal behaviours like this one get outlawed or carefully overseen... but mostly only because the public is aware of it and outraged and what was done. No special law was needed, the medical field simply had this allowance for this kind of procedure all along. That's how medicine works. Long ago doctors could bleed you to death ... it wasn't illegal because it had not been outlawed yet.
For a long time, it was perfectly legal to sterilize people that were deemed "unacceptable breeders" in many states.
-
Hold on... so what, 20-30 years ago or less, Doctors just decide.. hey I don't like the way that guy's looking at me, let's do surgery?
Seriously, how did these people end up under the guise of the physician in the first place?
-
@Dashrender said in You Are Two:
Hold on... so what, 20-30 years ago or less, Doctors just decide.. hey I don't like the way that guy's looking at me, let's do surgery?
Seriously, how did these people end up under the guise of the physician in the first place?
That was SUPER common, not just in the US, for a very long time... and there is still a lot of fear that that stuff going on in insane asylums and some other places. Doctors have a huge range of accepted oversight, especially if they claim that a patient is a danger to others or themselves. Once you are committed, unconscious or other... you have no rights and doctors own you.
It's nothing like it used to be, of course. But the degree of discretion that doctors have is still scarily high. In some cases it is necessary because of what they do. But historically it has gone so insanely far past where it should have gone. To levels bordering on genocide. The things that were discussed within the halls of "medicine" in the first half of the century should have had all of the "doctors" put away for life.
-
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@Dashrender said in You Are Two:
Hold on... so what, 20-30 years ago or less, Doctors just decide.. hey I don't like the way that guy's looking at me, let's do surgery?
Seriously, how did these people end up under the guise of the physician in the first place?
That was SUPER common, not just in the US, for a very long time... and there is still a lot of fear that that stuff going on in insane asylums and some other places. Doctors have a huge range of accepted oversight, especially if they claim that a patient is a danger to others or themselves. Once you are committed, unconscious or other... you have no rights and doctors own you.
It's nothing like it used to be, of course. But the degree of discretion that doctors have is still scarily high. In some cases it is necessary because of what they do. But historically it has gone so insanely far past where it should have gone. To levels bordering on genocide. The things that were discussed within the halls of "medicine" in the first half of the century should have had all of the "doctors" put away for life.
I work with the developmentally disabled and I've heard the stories from before our clients were in our care. It's some scary, heartbreaking stuff. We could be so much better than we are but hearing the stories their lives have improved a million fold. It actually sort of reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment in a way. The professionals running it allowed it to continue into unethical territory because it was gradual and everyone was used to it. Once a new person came in they opened everyone's eyes to what was really occurring and they shut it down. Humanity is pretty cruel.
-
@wirestyle22 said in You Are Two:
@scottalanmiller said in You Are Two:
@Dashrender said in You Are Two:
Hold on... so what, 20-30 years ago or less, Doctors just decide.. hey I don't like the way that guy's looking at me, let's do surgery?
Seriously, how did these people end up under the guise of the physician in the first place?
That was SUPER common, not just in the US, for a very long time... and there is still a lot of fear that that stuff going on in insane asylums and some other places. Doctors have a huge range of accepted oversight, especially if they claim that a patient is a danger to others or themselves. Once you are committed, unconscious or other... you have no rights and doctors own you.
It's nothing like it used to be, of course. But the degree of discretion that doctors have is still scarily high. In some cases it is necessary because of what they do. But historically it has gone so insanely far past where it should have gone. To levels bordering on genocide. The things that were discussed within the halls of "medicine" in the first half of the century should have had all of the "doctors" put away for life.
I work with the developmentally disabled and I've heard the stories from before our clients were in our care. It's some scary, heartbreaking stuff. We could be so much better than we are but hearing the stories their lives have improved a million fold. It actually sort of reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment in a way. The professionals running it allowed it to continue into unethical territory because it was gradual and everyone was used to it. Once a new person came in they opened everyone's eyes to what was really occurring and they shut it down. Humanity is pretty cruel.
SciShow had an article on that experiment too, on their "worst of humanity" list.
-
Sounds like it was almost as bad as a frontal lobotomy.
-
@Nic said in You Are Two:
Sounds like it was almost as bad as a frontal lobotomy.
That's the 80s term for it. Same procedure.
-
@scottalanmiller severing the corpus collosum is different from destroying the frontal lobes. The end result may be similar though.
-
I thought that they were doing both, there.
-
I think for the epilepsy surgery it's just severing the corpus collosum so the two hemispheres can no longer communicate.
