Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[feral chile]

are you pointing out the irony...?

Edited September 9, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

That said, I always find that most of the experiments are pretty artificial - humans don't live under lab conditions after all.

well, quite.

Not only that, they're extremely poor tests from a scientific viewpoint.

We know that for our thinking that everything we have ever experienced in our existence can be of relevance to that thinking, but it's not possible to include that 'everything' in any psychological consideration. It's not even possible to include more than a fraction of the things that we have very good reason to think might be relevant.

A proper scientific take on things would insist that everything which we know might be of relevance has to be included within the consideration, or else the conclusions can be rightly considered to be highly suspect.

Psychology takes the view that it's impossible to include everything which might be relevant, so it will instead only include what it wants to, what it can be bothered to, what it's pre-conceived dogma wishes to accept as relevant enough. It knows it's a failure on a scientific level before it even gets started on what it pretends to be science.

Edited September 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

I've just had a rather bizarre thought - God could be having a psychotic episode, and we might be the voices in his head.

[feral chile]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/decision-making-in-the-brain/

The above article's interesting, it's been posted before - at what stage do we call this thinking? We're only conscious of the decision about 7 seconds after the brain has made it.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

http://theness.com/n...g-in-the-brain/

The above article's interesting, it's been posted before - at what stage do we call this thinking? We're only conscious of the decision about 7 seconds after the brain has made it.

[feral chile]

Yeah, but the decision's already made before we're aware of it. Suggests it's predetermined. maybe it can be overridden, but again, that might be the result of nonverbal brain activity, and another 7second delay.

It strongly suggests that the brain is autonomous, but we're not.

Unless we're our brains, and then it's OK.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Yeah, but the decision's already made before we're aware of it. Suggests it's predetermined. maybe it can be overridden, but again, that might be the result of nonverbal brain activity, and another 7second delay.

It strongly suggests that the brain is autonomous, but we're not.

Unless we're our brains, and then it's OK.

[feral chile]

So an impulse causes us to do action A, but after 7 seconds Action B instead and so on.

I just find it worrying especially as I am doing forensics. I can understand the original impulse and then the 7 second delay, but after that. A simple situation would be to want to hit someone during an argument. You could clench your hand etc but not do it. The number of these 7 second events are inummerable in that circumstance. But also it does then give someone the defence of "I could not help it" (which in fairness does happen)

Edited September 10, 2011 by feral chile

[The Nal]

Sorry.....but......

1 min 10 in......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycvOtuM4ww&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Ed209]

He's totally nuts

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Yep, barking mad. His logic, such that it is, doesn't wander into the territory of being rational.

[eFestivals]

I've gotta agree.

Someone who admits to having murdered 77(?) people, but who then says he was doing us all a favour, says he should be acquitted because of that, and says he'd do it again, is defo as nuts as it gets.

[worm]

Someone who admits to having murdered 77(?) people, but who then says he was doing us all a favour, says he should be acquitted because of that, and says he'd do it again, is defo as nuts as it gets.

[The Nal]

And that's different to a terrorist, how?

[russycarps]

I think he is just an individual with very strong, very unpleasant beliefs, and the "courage" to actually act. Thankfully those who share his beliefs (and there are many) are too generally too cowardly to commit an atrocity such as this.

He isnt insane, why are you giving him that excuse?

He is just a horrible horrible c**t.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I'm no expert but it seems to me that you can understand the 'logical' progression that a terrorist uses to justify their goals, even if you don't agree with the logic and end result. You can't understand this bloke's logic at all. It's incomprehensible. That's why I'd say he's insane. What I can agree with is that he's a c**t of the first order.

[eFestivals]

And that's different to a terrorist, how?

The Nal has nailed it.

Terrorists dont think they should be acquitted when theyre caught usually.

Terrorists either try claiming it wasn't them that did the act and therefore they're innocent (pretty much the standard defence of IRA members, for example) or, they tend to admit that they're guilty in respect of the law (which has been the case with almost all AQ cases in the western world).

Those who admit having carried out those actions might feel that their actions were justified in the greater scheme of things, but are not so stupid as to believe themselves not guilty of having breeched the law, or to think that their actions were such that they would be admired by wider society (even those who might agree with their aims), or that they should be set free to do much the same thing again.

He's very different to any standard terrorist.

[worm]

Terrorists dont think they should be acquitted when theyre caught usually.

[russycarps]

he's only pleaded not guilty to get his day in court though. He now has the opportunity to spout his absurd views to the whole world. If he pleads guilty he gets sentenced and goes to prison without having his say.

The whole thing should be subject to a media black out. This is exactly what he wants.

[eFestivals]

I'd suggest that you're just talking semantics. They obviously believe that it's justified, which amounts to the same thing. They simply believe that the court that condemns them is unjust, which is no different to believing that the court should acquit them.

Incorrect.

Believing the court is unjust or doesn't have the moral right to condemn you of the crime still doesn't mean that a sane person would expect to be acquitted.

The court is there on a particular basis, and with that basis and the admission of having carried out the crime there is zero chance of acquittal.

You can sanely claim that the court doesn't have the right to hear your case, but a rational recognition that it is hearing your case comes with a rational recognition that you will not be acquitted when you've admitted to doing that crime.

Taking each part of his words which in isolation has each of those parts making logical sense. When everything is joined up they make no rational sense at all. They would only make sense if the country in which the court is held were officially or even on the sly engaged in a war against Islam and able to accept him as one of their foot soldiers.

He believes his actions should gain people's admiration. If he were sane he'd realise that even many who are sympathetic to his aims would feel his methods and choice of actions go way beyond what can be admired.

[eFestivals]

he's only pleaded not guilty to get his day in court though. He now has the opportunity to spout his absurd views to the whole world. If he pleads guilty he gets sentenced and goes to prison without having his say.

Nah. If his plea of not guilty was only to get his day in court and the platform on which to speak, he's still no need to be saying that he expects to get acquitted.

It's that part which shows he's got a screw loose.

Edited April 18, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I understand his 'logic' totally. He has a belief and he's acted on it. He thinks multiculturalism will be the end of the way things are..... and he's probably right (I'm rather fond of the prospect...)

is it that different to armies invading other countries and killing innocent people in the name of what they believe is right?

Oh, I'm with you on this take of things.

It's no different to an army, apart from in one respect: an army has the blessing of the state for it's actions, and the support of the state for those actions which means that the likes of him wouldn't end up in court.

The fact that he is in court should be telling him it's not the same thing as an army. His words to the court get to show him as unable to recognise that difference.

[worm]

He believes his actions should gain people's admiration. If he were sane he'd realise that even many who are sympathetic to his aims would feel his methods and choice of actions go way beyond what can be admired.

[russycarps]

Nah. If his plea of not guilty was only to get his day in court and the platform on which to speak, he's still no need to be saying that he expects to get acquitted.

It's that part which shows he's got a screw loose.

[eFestivals]

it's no different to certain leaders when they go to trial for war crimes. It shows consistency in his/their beliefs

I'd say that's more the case of those leaders believing themselves to be 'the state' - and from one angle they're right of course, because it's that leader who has made the decision for the state.

Breivik couldn't do the same thing in the same way because he's not been leader of the state.