Elliot Rodger's had Aspergers Syndrome. Should we not allow people with Aspergers to own guns?

[DonAlejandroVega]

nothing personal..........I suffer from sociopathic tendencies. my empathy is a learned thing.

 

[ginwilly]

not caring about someone is not the same as being unable empathize with them. so.......you don't care about them........will you pass them on the road, if they are injured, and dying of thirst? if so......you lack human empathy and are a sociopath.

I think we are just mingling semantics.

In your example, you described the majority of people in NYC.Some are able to empathize with a great deal of people, some, only their inner circle. I get what you are saying though, you can lack empathy toward specific someones and not be a sociopath, but lacking the ability to empathize at all will probably label you as such. I still don't think it makes you dangerous by default, just non-societal.

IDK, it's a tough one. I just don't believe a lack of empathy leads you to death and destruction automatically. It may pre-dispose you to this though, I honestly don't know.

 

[greenlikemoney]

So if I pass Uncle Buckfuck on the road, and he is injured and dying of thirst, and I just run over his leg a little bit and keep going, that makes me a sociopath? I hardly think so.

 

[ginwilly]

nothing personal..........I suffer from sociopathic tendencies. my empathy is a learned thing.

I had a prof tell us before clinicals that without empathy we would not be successful in healthcare, but sympathy is the worst thing you can have when treating patients. I had to learn that through experience before it made sense.

I had to learn NOT to sympathize but to empathize. It's not easy, I'm curious how you learned empathy? I'd like to think it's an ingrained trait so it kind of fascinates me. If it's too personal, forgive me.

 

[Harrekin]

You people are fucked in the head.

Mental illness = No Guns, period.

"They'll try take our guns", fuck off, Ass burgers are shooting up the US, but nah, its fine.

 

[ginwilly]

You people are fucked in the head.

Mental illness = No Guns, period.

"They'll try take our guns", fuck off, Ass burgers are shooting up the US, but nah, its fine.

How about ADD, ADHD, bi-polar, depression, etc..? Diagnosis of mental health is still a very subjective science, I'm leery of the ramifications. It's been established that most anti-gun people are liberals, it's established that soft sciences like psychology attract liberals. By happenstance, you would want to put anti-gun people in charge of who gets guns. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Padawanbater2]

all science "attract liberals"

 

[greenlikemoney]

all science "attract liberals"

I hardly think so. Me ( a scientist ) and my colleagues are definitely not liberals ( nor are we ultra-conservative ). I find that comment to be very smallminded.

 

[BigNBushy]

all science "attract liberals"

No. Hard science involving super mathematics has a conservative bend in it.

Now, they may not be hard core Republicans because of all the crazy christianists cocks they like to suck.

But they are fairly conservative when compared to shit like psychology.

 

[Harrekin]

How about ADD, ADHD, bi-polar, depression, etc..? Diagnosis of mental health is still a very subjective science, I'm leery of the ramifications. It's been established that most anti-gun people are liberals, it's established that soft sciences like psychology attract liberals. By happenstance, you would want to put anti-gun people in charge of who gets guns. That's a recipe for disaster.

If your illness is enough to make you stab, crash into and shoot people, then yes, you should be barred from owning guns.

If your mental illness effects your ability to make rational decisions, then you should be barred from owning guns.

Its a pretty simple system, its not my problem half of America are popping pills.

 

[ginwilly]

all science "attract liberals"

We've had this discussion before, science in itself is non-partisan. You can look it up if you care, I feel confident enough that I don't care, so I"m not going to do the leg work for you.

The soft sciences such as psychology, sociology, philosophy and poli-sci draw more liberals than not. The hard sciences like chemistry, biology, physics and others tend to draw a more libertarian person who takes emotions out of the equation.

I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing. The soft science requires subjective findings based on human characteristics. Liberals tend to be better with emotions, libertarians tend to be better with analytical data. I have no idea really what soical-conservatives belong to. Probably law enforcement, criminal sciences or such.

 

[Harrekin]

We've had this discussion before, science in itself is non-partisan. You can look it up if you care, I feel confident enough that I don't care, so I"m not going to do the leg work for you.

The soft sciences such as psychology, sociology, philosophy and poli-sci draw more liberals than not. The hard sciences like chemistry, biology, physics and others tend to draw a more libertarian person who takes emotions out of the equation.

I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing. The soft science requires subjective findings based on human characteristics. Liberals tend to be better with emotions, libertarians tend to be better with analytical data. I have no idea really what soical-conservatives belong to. Probably law enforcement, criminal sciences or such.

Social conservatives?

Probably the SS...

 

[ginwilly]

If your illness is enough to make you stab, crash into and shoot people, then yes, you should be barred from owning guns.

If your mental illness effects your ability to make rational decisions, then you should be barred from owning guns.

Its a pretty simple system, its not my problem half of America are popping pills.

How about this compromise.. Instead of banning them from owning guns, ban them from carrying guns. I just don't feel I have the right to keep people from protecting themselves inside their own homes.

Strangely enough, I would be for a handgun ban before any other type. I guess it's because I only own longguns. I'm not for that, but it makes more sense than a "scary looking" gun ban.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I had a prof tell us before clinicals that without empathy we would not be successful in healthcare, but sympathy is the worst thing you can have when treating patients. I had to learn that through experience before it made sense.

I had to learn NOT to sympathize but to empathize. It's not easy, I'm curious how you learned empathy? I'd like to think it's an ingrained trait so it kind of fascinates me. If it's too personal, forgive me.

not at all. I just actively practiced putting myself in other's shoes; something that comes naturally to an empathetic person. years of practice, which continues today, and always must.......

 

[ginwilly]

not at all. I just actively practiced putting myself in other's shoes; something that comes naturally to an empathetic person. years of practice, which continues today, and always must.......

Good on ya man. It's not as easy as you make it sound I'm sure. Many of my peers will lack empathy and default to sympathy instead and I find it impossible to feel empathy toward some. It really is a constant work in progress, sometimes I need the reminder too, thanks for the answer DAVe.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Good on ya man. It's not as easy as you make it sound I'm sure. Many of my peers will lack empathy and default to sympathy instead and I find it impossible to feel empathy toward some. It really is a constant work in progress, sometimes I need the reminder too, thanks for the answer DAVe.

you got it, man. I practice a lot of stuff; I have to. bad, bad up-bringing. that's why I advocate non-aggressive parenting.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I hardly think so. Me ( a scientist ) and my colleagues are definitely not liberals ( nor are we ultra-conservative ). I find that comment to be very smallminded.

No. Hard science involving super mathematics has a conservative bend in it.

Now, they may not be hard core Republicans because of all the crazy christianists cocks they like to suck.

But they are fairly conservative when compared to shit like psychology.

We've had this discussion before, science in itself is non-partisan. You can look it up if you care, I feel confident enough that I don't care, so I"m not going to do the leg work for you.

The soft sciences such as psychology, sociology, philosophy and poli-sci draw more liberals than not. The hard sciences like chemistry, biology, physics and others tend to draw a more libertarian person who takes emotions out of the equation.

I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing. The soft science requires subjective findings based on human characteristics. Liberals tend to be better with emotions, libertarians tend to be better with analytical data. I have no idea really what soical-conservatives belong to. Probably law enforcement, criminal sciences or such.

"Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%)."

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

This piece by slate is especially hilarious considering the context of this post, lol;

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/lab_politics.html

 

[greenlikemoney]

Not in my world, but then again my world is hard science, not soft science.

 

[ginwilly]

"Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%)."

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

This piece by slate is especially hilarious considering the context of this post, lol;

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/lab_politics.html

Wow, Slate and PewResearch without a source to the study. I stand corrected
Let me post opinions for NationalReview and a study done by Heritage and see how much credence you give it.

I AM surprised by the numbers of physics and chemistry in that chart. If they give where they got those numbers I can't find it.

You officially have me questioning my own observations, you can finish me off by providing the genesis of that study.

 

[Dr Kynes]

all science "attract liberals"

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ohh man...

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

thats rich.

opinion polls mean so much.