Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I wrote about the process of aversion shock therapy and that it isn't a pleasant experience.

That's not all you wrote. You didn't just describe the procedure or say that it's unpleasant. You made direct and indirect claims about what it would do to the brain, compared it to other forms of psychological conditioning, said it could be good for criminals, and framed punishment as something that can correct supposedly terrible behavior.

Boo hoo.

Those are claims about its effects and usefulness, not mere descriptions of the process. Saying you only “wrote about the process” now is just narrowing what you originally said instead of addressing those claims.

 This type of therapy is probably good for criminals as it is a form of punishment and can potentially deter them from doing terrible things. If not at least something was done. 

You literally made a claim about its usefulness here: “This type of therapy is probably good for criminals as it is a form of punishment and can potentially deter them from doing terrible things.” That's not merely describing the process or saying that it's unpleasant. You're asserting that electrically shocking people is probably a useful form of punishment and deterrence. That claim needs evidence, and “if not at least something was done” isn't evidence. It just expresses approval of inflicting punishment regardless of whether it actually works.

Dragoonback said: 

You literally made a claim about its usefulness here: “This type of therapy is probably good for criminals as it is a form of punishment and can potentially deter them from doing terrible things.” That's not merely describing the process or saying that it's unpleasant. You're asserting that electrically shocking people is probably a useful form of punishment and deterrence.

I added a final note. It's okay to do that. 

That claim needs evidence, and “if not at least something was done” isn't evidence. It just expresses approval of inflicting punishment regardless of whether it actually works.

 It's called consequence. Consequence deters us from doing dumb shit.

Well. It does for most of us anyway. Some people never learn no matter how many times they stumble themselves into multiple calamites. lol you want proof. 

Spatial Mind said: 

I added a final note. It's okay to do that. 

 It's called consequence. Consequence deters us from doing dumb shit.

Well. It does for most of us anyway. Some people never learn no matter how many times they stumble themselves into multiple calamites. lol you want proof. 

Yes, consequences can influence behavior. That doesn't prove that electrically shocking people is an effective or appropriate consequence. You're jumping from the general fact that consequences can deter some behavior to the specific conclusion that deliberately inflicting pain is a good behavioral intervention. That's the part you still haven't supported.

And “you want proof” misses the point. You made the claim that this type of therapy is “probably good for criminals.” The burden is on you to support that specific claim, not on me to prove that it doesn't work.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I added a final note. It's okay to do that. 

 It's called consequence. Consequence deters us from doing dumb shit.

Well. It does for most of us anyway. Some people never learn no matter how many times they stumble themselves into multiple calamites. lol you want proof. 

Yes, consequences can influence behavior. That doesn't prove that electrically shocking people is an effective or appropriate consequence.

Consequence doesn't need one's approval. 

Don't recall claiming this method to being appropriate either.

You're jumping from the general fact that consequences can deter some behavior to the specific conclusion that deliberately inflicting pain is a good behavioral intervention. That's the part you still haven't supported.

Partially correct. I did not support this. 

And “you want proof” misses the point. You made the claim that this type of therapy is “probably good for criminals.” The burden is on you to support that specific claim, not on me to prove that it doesn't work.

 "Probably good for criminals" isn't the same as "Good for criminals"

.

.

.

I can't always help you figure things out Goon. I'm not all that motivated, I should at least be paid for my time helping you understand and cope and learn and all that comes with it.