Kieran

Sold. I'll manage it

Potentially. Haven't booked onto it yet, but I'd be interested. Will have to have a think

@broxton8r.bsky.social you heading to this?

Psychopathy..... Isn't a thing.

@broxton8r.bsky.social sounds like this may interest you.... If you can get hold of it.

And the law is? That was my question, what is the law you can use as an example, not it's historical or contemporary status.

Batman has a very strict no kill rule. It's a major part of his character. Batman won't kill even the Joker, the most heinous murderer in all of Gotham. His view is that killing is always wrong. Superman doesn't kill, but it isn't a major part of his character. Jedi refrain from killing, but will.

What if I told you that often individuals who commit murder are not, in fact, likely to reoffend? Recidivism among murderers is low. Should they still die when, actually, their harm to society is minimal after their crime and incarceration?

The current law?

And as for using a comic book to make the argument, I counter you there. I didn't use the comic book as a basis for argument, I used your obvious liking of a particular character who espouses non-killing as a philosophical point.

Neither Superman or the Jedi has a strict no kill rule. Superman doesn't kill, but it isn't a huge part of his mythos. If you'd used either one I'd have made no comment because neither holds specific relevance to the conversation.

Not everyone convicted is actually guilty. Innocent people spend time in prison for crimes they didn't commit.

Absolutely. Until recently, it wasn't legal to marry as a homosexual. Decades ago homosexuals were criminals for practicing their sexuality. Law does not equal moral and to believe otherwise is naive.

More interestingly I notice you have a Batman profile picture. Might I point out Batman's strict no killing rule which stems from the position of becoming a killer when you choose to kill. To take a life is to make a choice and a judgement and no one, not murderer or executioner, has that right.

We place on executioner to take life is inherently immoral. We class murderers as wrong because they kill someone, by what right do we define their act as murder but the executioner's as justice? That's a fine line and rather unjustified.

There are many reasons the detah penalty is wrong. One is that not everyone convicted of a crime is actually guilty. Another is that a crime may not actually be wrong (take, for example, the strict anti protest laws that caught people during the King's Coronation in the UK). Another is the right...

Can confirm this is a good book. Very clear and accessible and makes it's points very well.

Had a lovely talk today from @chriskempshall.bsky.social on writing fictional history and The Rise and Fall of the Galactic Empire. Thank you so much to the whole panel and thank you Chris specifically for answering my many questions during and after.

Science and statistics quite how you claim. I would suggest you continue to do more research into the subject and, again, not take things as absolutes. FYI, since you ignored my question, I will point out your position is very nature over nurture which there is significant evidence against.

1) 1+70 doesn't equal 100. So what about the other 29%?
2) You're misconstruing your statement there. 70% of humanity, I assume, stems from your 70% of human suffering. But 70% of suffering does not equate to 70% of humanity as a whole. Some may not suffer at all. I don't think you understand...

Great way at debating. "you say a thing I don't like. Goodbye." Fantastic way to learn and teach.

Again, you're presuming such phenomena as a 'psychopath' exists. It's not really a thing in academia because its ultimately not agreed upon. But if we do take your premise as true, once again, are you taking the assumption that we can see this physiologically and it predetermines criminality?

Are you advocating, then, for a nature over nurture application of Criminal Justice? You're suggesting that an individual is predisposed to criminality based on physiological and psychological traits they can't control?

in fiction. The Joker is clearly psychopathic. He is definitively abnormal. But in real life, whilst many individuals who commit crime present counter to society, we can't truly define society as the norm. Not to mention some crimes are arguably not actually bad acts. Gay marriage wasn't legal.

Actually, within the realm of Criminology, there isn't generally a clearly defined "psychopathy". Some claim there is, but we can't truly define abnormal because there isn't a defined normal. Everyone's different. One person's psychopath may be another's best friend. Psychopathy is only clear...

Mate.... Please fill me in. Too much going on, I haven't seen anything about this. Fucking Lombroso man.

Was very good to attend. Fascinating talk. Recommend the book highly.

To some extent there are similarities. But Netanyahu is calling for the eradication of an entire ethnic and religious population. Even though the similarities exist and civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan, which should never be excused, genocide was not what they did. Nowhere close

Having read "But What Can I Do" I can say categorically it does not really talk about whether he's guilty or innocent much. The focus is on important, and oft-relegated, topics such as protesting, campaigning, and generally the tools we need to use to push the far right back.

For all of his faults. For all of his co-host Rory Stewarts faults. For all of what people like them have done and said, we have to draw a line and say we understand that sometimes people make mistakes. Or they do bad things. But that doesn't stop them having a place in the world.