Adam Lanza diagnosed Aspergers, what happens with bad care

Post Reply New Topic

There isn't a very strong causal relationship, if any.

Research Inconclusive About Whether Child Victims Become Adult Abusers



I have been trying to find some statistics, but it seems that the actual increased risk is small if it's there at all, and is definitely overshadowed by other factors. We are nowhere near the idea that "Being abused causes you to become an abuser". There are vague hints that it might increase your chances, but that's all.

Wow. It seems that I was incorrect.

killing 20 elementary school children is bad, and makes him a bad person regardless of the disorders he may have suffered.

Actually, that was my reaction too. I was looking for information on exactly how much of an increased risk there was, because I was sure that it wasn't huge--that most people who were molested didn't become sex offenders--but I didn't realize until I actually looked into it that it was more urban legend than researched fact. I suppose there could be some increased risk, but with that data, it seems like it really isn't very high to begin with.

I think most people probably encounter stressful events of some kind--things that, if handled the wrong way, could lead them into becoming abusers. But most people choose not to be.

Humans are like weather... too complex to predict, with many factors interacting unpredictably, butterflies flapping their wings in China. Only the overall trends can be plotted. Individuals are still unknown factors.

I didn't see anyone here make an argument that what he did was OK. That's an irrational distortion and smear on your part.

Meltdown is a bit of a stretch for an incident like this. I could see that if he just suddenly flipped out or something. This didn't go down like that. It was definitely planned and pre-meditated.

Adam Lanza was never officially diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, his mother and brother merely speculated that he had Asperger syndrome.

Clearly you didn't understand the trivialisation by the use of the boldened parts above!

Let me spell it out for you. By using the word all in this sentence, this is stating that the killing of these innocent people was not a significant thing. By using the word evil in inverted commas, this is explicitly criticising the fact that some posters have described him as evil for his murderous act - in effect disagreeing. I hope that clarifies the facts for you.

How on earth you state that anything I have commented is either irrational or a smear is utterly beyond me!

You appear to be feeling negative...I hope the effect of Detroit & Co. isn't reaching you:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... 0R20130222

(just joking )

Yes however something lead to him becoming this 'bad' person unless you are arguing he was just born that way and would have committed the mass shooting regardless of anything. It is very easy to just say 'oh he was just a bad person.' and be done with it then it remains a mystery what drives people to do these things.

Also, lots of things are bad, by this logic if someone does anything 'bad' they are a 'bad' person, and if someone does anything good they are a 'good' person....so does whether a person is good or bad switch depending on if they are doing a bad or good thing........this is why I can only see good, bad, evil, pure ect as subjective things.

That said. evil lives under the skin, that applies to everyone......so everyone has the potential to become a 'bad' person even the non-defective ones.

People can change. Even someone like Adam Lanza could change. I agree that judging people as bad or good does not make much sense because a person is not a static entity; but judging their deeds as bad or good is definitely possible. It's necessary to have concepts of good and evil for you to judge your own actions properly.

We can't judge people as all good or all bad, but it doesn't follow that the ideas of "good" and "evil" must therefore be subjective. A specific choice in a specific context can be good, evil, or morally neutral, and has to be the same every time that specific situation comes up. (That it's mathematically impossible for the exact same situation to occur twice is true, but not particularly relevant. The important thing is that there is only one "right answer" for that specific situation.) Subjective good and evil do not make sense because if you could make two different judgments about the exact same situation, good and evil would not have any meaning. Either they are objective, defined by logical rules of ethics, or they do not exist at all.

What some people mean by "subjective" is actually not subjectivity at all but situation-dependence. For example, it might be good to give a child a peanut-butter sandwich if you know the child is hungry, but evil if you know the child is allergic to peanuts. If the child were allergic and you didn't know, the harm done would be an accident--your own mental state is part of the situation in question. This sort of situation-dependence is not subjective morality, but an acknowledgment that every decision is unique.

What I don't like is the idea that people who decide to hurt others somehow can't help it. A human being is the sum of all the information in his brain; when that brain makes a decision, the human being is making a decision. It's the human being who is the cause of his own behavior. The brain controls the body, and controls itself through innumerable feedback loops. To the extent that it is meaningful to say that we make decisions, it is also meaningful to say that we make good or evil decisions.

Psychologically speaking that is not very accurate..genetic factors, envrionmental factors and social factors are all causes of human behavior...not all human behavior is a choice. Sure the decision to commit a mass murder is ultimately up to the individual, but there is no way of knowing if they could have stopped themselves if the rage they feel is too strong they might not have the ability to stop themselves. Things can get pretty distorted and twisted once you reach certain mental states, I've dealt with that from feeling suicidal, but I am sure being full of anger about how you were treated and all that might cause distorted/twisted thinking.

The brain controls the body, that doesn't mean thoughts always control the body, everything is not a decision. Anyways I'm just generally speaking for all I know this Adam Lanza character wanted to hurt people regardless of being wronged by them or not, or maybe he did feel wronged by them......maybe he was angry at people for things that they had nothing to do with that he perceived they did. But human behavior involves more than decisions.

It would be better to say that how you make decisions is affected by who you are, and who you are is affected by your environment and your genetics. But as I've said before, humans are complex systems. There is no way to predict with anywhere near certainty what any particular person will decide just by knowing his genes and environment. There are too many factors to track, and the tiniest disturbances could completely change the outcome, even as huge changes make very little difference. Human behavior is truly unpredictable, because the smallest such disturbances occur on the quantum level--so it's not just a matter of having enough information about the person or enough scientific knowledge, but an actual physical impossibility to predict a human being.

You can say, "If this happens, then that will be more likely," and without that science would be impossible. But the more complex the thing you are studying, the less sense it makes to say, "If this happens, then that will happen with such high probability that we can assume certainty." If you're watching billiard balls, you can simplify by saying, "If I have the information about how this system starts, then I can calculate how it will behave in the future." If you're studying humans, the complexity is too high for that simplification to make sense; all you're left with is various levels of "maybe".

You are wrong, if you watched the video in the OP you would know that he actually was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, after being first diagnosed with a disorder in reacting to impulses.