Posted by oohah:
Let us say for the sake of argument that Q Woods isn't evil, that instead he has a chemical problem, that caused him to think that dog fighting and abuse is okay. I find that even more scary. Now he is in New York, where more trouble is to be found than just about anywhere. Frightening.
Yes, you're right about that. There are certainly red flags, and by no means is it guaranteed that this signing will pan out. bobs was correct to point out in the other thread that animal abuse is a predictor of deeper sociological/psychological problems. But, there are people who abuse animals as adolescents and eventually come to be largely normal, respectable people. Also, those cases usually involve abuse just for the sake of abuse, as opposed to having ulterior motives as well (gambling), and they involve personally inflicting harm rather than allowing animals to harm eachother. So there is reason to worry here, but the book on Qyntel isn't necessarily closed just yet.
I am not excusing Kidd or Sprewell. But we have all seen people act in anger or acted in anger ourselves, so I can wrap my mind around that. I can believe that a person who commited these types of acts can reform themselves, and certainly learn to control themselves. Kidd was contrite and seemed truly ashamed, he paid his debt, and his wife is still his biggest fan. I think Sprewell may have some of that chemical problem you are referring to, and that is why I don't care for him too much.
But Q Wood's actions involve DELIBERATION and INTENT, and I cannot wrap my mind around someone making a DECISION day after day to abuse an animal for fun and profit.
I agree that the action is reprehensible, and you can call the person that too as well if you'd like. I guess what I am trying to get around to though is that the person might not have much choice in being that way or not. For instance, developmental psychopaths commit cruel and dispicable acts in a very deliberate and intentful way. But they do not experience the world the same way you or I do-- in particular, they have trouble recognizing emotional cues and learning how to associate those cues with socially appropriate behaviors-- so in a very real sense I don't think they can be faulted for their actions the same way you or I could if we were to commit the same acts. Their machinery is just different, they have no choice in the matter.
But the thing is, the same thing goes for e.g. a person who has severe problems controlling his temper. The nuts and bolts are different, and there is only so much a person can do on his own to affect things like that. That is the key point I'm trying to make here.
It's sort of as if I want a bunch of people to make sculptures out of different materials, and I give them different tools to do it with. Depending on the materials and tools, some people are going to do a lousy job even if they're actually somewhat skilled, and others are going to do comparatively better even though they're relatively unskilled. In the end, no matter what, an ugly sculpture is an ugly sculpture, no question-- but just keep in mind that before you make conclusions about the artist, you should take into account what he had to work with initially.
But seriously Tomverve, isn't this entirely speculation on your part? How do we know he simply isn't a scumbag? Is there such a thing? In fact, isn't that more likely?
We don't know what Qyntel Woods's head is really like, no. But apparently he did have to grow up with some potentially emotionally damaging (especially in childhood) hardships, and frankly, deliberate and detached abuse is more likely to arise from some kind of emotional/social/psychological disorder than it is to be the result of a psychologically healthy human being who for some reason just doesn't give a damn. It may nonetheless be the case that Qyntel falls into the latter category, but certainly we can't say outright that he does just judging by his deeds. As for the issue of probability-- given what little I know about his past, his animal abuse case and other various things (remember when he gave a cop his rookie card as a form of ID?), I'd say it's more likely that he genuinely has some sort of disorder. But even if that's true, that doesn't mean it can't be treated and that he can't take steps to get better.
Or can everyone lean on the crutch of "it's not my fault it is my nueropsychology problems."?
Well, no one can lean on that line completely, since the "I" who says it's not "my" fault is itself some outcome of neuropsychological processes. So that would be a bit like saying, "the sun isn't round, it's circular."
Anyway, I don't know. It's tricky. Actually I would tend to think that it is true to a large extent that ultimately people can't help what they do-- even normal folks. I think the sense of free, unconstrained will we have is largely an illusion. Still, it's something of a catch-22, because if you believe something like "it's not my fault, I am fated to be this way, etc." then you will probably be less susceptible to learning and to change. Whereas if you believe "I have complete responsibility for my actions, nothing (not even my brain) controls how I can enforce my will, etc." then you are probably more likely to tend to learn, think, and behave in ways that are more flexible and changeable (even if at each step of the way, you actually could not have done it any differently). So, practically speaking, it is probably good to some extent to maintain something like the commonsense view, even if only as a convenient social fiction. But on the other hand, you have the issue of how to deal best with e.g. crime and punishment and all that. So, I don't know. Complex stuff.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
12/6/2005 2:19 PM
. Like I wrote in another post, I could care less what he does with his own body. He could smoke crack and shoot heroin and still play on the Knicks for all I care, and I would cheer for him just like I did LT. As long as he isn't hurting other people or poor defenseless animals.