@parados,
parados wrote:
A "poor childhood" doesn't guarantee that someone will be a criminal. It might make it more likely. For instance, someone with a "good childhood" may have a 1 in 20 chance of committing a crime while someone with a "poor childhood" may have a 1 in 13 chance. It doesn't make it a cause for criminality however. It only increases the likelihood of committing a crime. It is a contributing factor perhaps but it doesn't "produce" the criminal behavior.
So if I read your answer, you concede that I am correct, without actually admitting it however. Nowhere did I claim that the common denominators always produced ruthless dictators, in fact I was quite careful to point out that other factors needed to occur as well to bring about the result.
Quote:The other problem okie is you have to create standards for what classifies as a "poor childhood." Those standards then have to be rigorously applied. You failed to set standards and you failed to apply them rigorously. Dysfunctional family and troubled childhood that extends into adulthood. A dysfunctional family is a broad range that could apply to 90% of families. What standards are you talking about?
What is a "troubled childhood?"
You need to use your head. Obviously, it takes a little common sense. Abandonment by parents, the kid getting in trouble for stabbing a fellow student, things like that, obviously you need to use just a smidgeon of common sense, Parados, if you can, and realize that those things are not ordinary or desireable. Obviously these are not things that lend themselves to a computer checklist, there are degrees of seriousness, and that is where we come in to use some common sense and apply. You can hopefully read the histories of the childhoods for example, of dictators, and make judgements about whether their experiences were fairly normal, or pretty abnormal, and I have made the obvious judgement that most of the people I've checked are pretty abnormal. Now, if you consider going to jail, stabbing other students, getting kicked out of school, things like that, as normal, then I don't know if you can ever figure this subject out, Parados.
Nowhere have I claimed a one to one relationship, such as if a kid throws a bottle of ink at the teacher, vs a kid getting kicked out of school, he will thus do such and such? If you expect that kind of perfection, you could not be more confused about the purpose and how to use reason with some of this stuff. I am merely suggesting that certain things in the experience of people, degrees of dysfunction, etc., if they gain political power, could produce very undesireable results. I believe that is entirely wise and advisable to do. We don't want really screwed up people in politics. Slightly screwed up people, perhaps we can survive, but really screwed up ones, no, I think we as a society need to be smarter than that.
