Hey, we want to be part of the hate! by dreamtrove

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That would depend a lot on the definition of miracle that we agree on. The usual definition is dependent upon divine intervention, but it doesn’t have to be that way. A miracle could simply be an unlikely, lucky event. And if that were the definition that we agreed upon, than I might be similarly confused by your unwillingness to use the word to describe such an event.

My definition of miracle does contain a supernatural influence, yes.

Quote:

We seem to agree up on a definition of evil, yet despite that you continue to insist that there is something else.

The problem is that we haven't actually agreed upon a definition.

My definition of evil emphasizes that it is an absolute concept.

I perhaps misleadingly gave an example of what PARTS of Bundy's behavior would inspire others to use the word. But you cannot separate those parts from every other part. It is not absolutely one thing.

Quote:
What? Because according to the definition, evil simply means morally reprehensible. That’s it.

Not my definition. Morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible.

My own definition from an earlier post: "Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist."

The sense of the absolute and irredeemable, as if there was nothing vulnerable or understandable in the act, be it ever so miniscule, is what I reject about the concept.

If it is not part of your defintion, then we are not agreeing on one. If it is part of your definition, then we are disagreeing about the existence of the concept.

Either way, it's not about political correctness.

Quote:

I’m not concerned with whether or not you acknowledge the word or not, I’m just curious as to what drives you to deny it.

I'm not denying the word. I'm denying the concept. And I hope I adequately explained it above.

Quote:

I disagree with the whole concept of political correctness. At best it’s a redundant social norm, at worst it’s a manipulative attempt to control thought.

So you don't think that racial or sexist slurs or such should be avoided? Because avoiding them, I agree, is a kind of manipulation, but not all manipulation is bad. Education is manipulation. Raising children is manipulation. Communication is manipulation. Preferring a more neutral language is a manipulation of associations and categories. It is, however, not synonymous with lying or hiding the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
My own definition from an earlier post: "Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist."

Well it doesn’t exist according to you, but what you describe is Ted Bundy. In what way is he not absolutely irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious? I think you will be hard-pressed to come up with an argument that makes what Ted Bundy did completely understandable? But why must evil not be understandable? Evil describes human behavior, so as humans should we not have some incite?

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you don't think that racial or sexist slurs or such should be avoided?

I don’t think we need political correctness to demonstrate common courtesy or tolerance. As I said, at best it’s a redundant social norm. We don’t need it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Dreamtrove: that concept and discussion needs it's own thread.

My own beliefs have eastern leanings, but closer to the Black Zen rooted in much misunderstood cults of earlier generations, maltheistic in nature and with a view of the deisms as forces inevitably inimical to humanity because of their very nature.

Whether those deisms are a natural force or an artificial one, either created by those who seek to create the force of their worship (gestalt theory) or a force existing outside the realm of human perception (foreigner theory) is much debated, but their detriment to humanity is not.

Anyhow, this really needs it's own thread, and even then expect to be nitpicked by conventionalists.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We are? I thought we put them in jail, in isolation, and on death row. That's not "studying" them. -SignyM

I think you will find that there is considerable case study on Ted Bundy.- Finn

Has anyone ever done a complete neurological assessment? Put him in an fMRI and shown him pictures of butterflies and dead babies? Tested him for heavy metal poisoning? Tried giving him antidpressants? More dopamine? Taken a small sample of brain tissue to look for various receptors? Tried to look for a BIOLOGICAL cause of his behavior, as opposed to a historic (environmental) one?

Did you know that 50% of peeps on death row have physical brain trauma, mostly as a result of abuse?

Quote:
Perhaps you fear evil. But I don’t necessarily fear evil. And we study evil all the time, hence the case study of Ted Bundy.

The point is: what does the definition of "evil" get us? What action are we to take as a result of such a concept? I can see isolating people for the protection of others but... then what?

Quote:
I think you probably see a lot of people who haven’t made choices that agree with you, but that doesn’t make them lizards.

Sigh. You really don't understand what I'm saying.

EVERYONE has a lizard-brain. Long before humans evolved, long before the big-brain with all of its nicely folded gray matter, animals were sensing, reacting, remembering, abstracting, learning, and predicting. Cats, they have an abstract notion of "water": they recognize it whether it is in a puddle, a bowl, or a stream.

And just because we have a big-brain doesn't mean our lizard-brain has gone away or stopped working. It hasn't. It's still there- comparing, remembering, constructing- motivating us in ways we often don't even recognize. LONG BEFORE someone has made a conscious decision to move their arm, it shows up by fMRI in the motor strip of the frontal cortex. If you were to cut someone's corpus callosum (the bundle that ties both halves of the brain together) and present a horrific picture to right-brain, their pupils will constrict and they will sit back and possibly gasp. If you ASK them why they just did that, their LEFT brain (which handles words and absolutely no idea what the right-brain saw) will confabulate a long story which has nothing to do with what actually happened.

Being conscious means understanding what your lizard-brain is doing. That is far beyond most people... me included.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Has anyone ever done a complete neurological assessment? Put him in an fMRI and shown him pictures of butterflies and dead babies? Tested him for heavy metal poisoning? Tried giving him antidpressants? More dopamine? Taken a small sample of brain tissue to look for various receptors? Tried to look for a BIOLOGICAL cause of his behavior, as opposed to a historic (environmental) one?

I don’t know. I’m not a forensic psychologist, but I do know that we have studied many serial killers; Bundy may have been among them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The point is: what does the definition of "evil" get us?

I’ve already explained that.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Being conscious means understanding what your lizard-brain is doing. That is far beyond most people... me included.

I’m not sure that’s what being conscious means, but so what?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
My own definition from an earlier post: "Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist."
Well it doesn’t exist according to you, but what you describe is Ted Bundy. In what way is he not absolutely irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious?

I do not believe in "absolutely irredeemable", is why. What he did, though horrible and in need of consequence, is as much part of humanity as the pleasurable and good things we are capable of. I cannot deny his fears, normal pleasures, damage or hopes, as if they do not exist in the light of his crimes. He's a whole, full human being. His actions are made up of every part of him just like every one of his actions make up who he is. I cannot reject a human being as irredeemable.

No, I do not expect anyone who was victimized by his actions to forgive him. Or anyone, really. Just explaining my personal views here.

Quote:
I think you will be hard-pressed to come up with an argument that makes what Ted Bundy did completely understandable? But why must evil not be understandable? Evil describes human behavior, so as humans should we not have some incite?

My definition doesn't say anything about not being understandable, where are you taking this from?

I think what he did, if you try, you can absolutely understand from his perspective, so it is understandable. Doesn't make it right.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you don't think that racial or sexist slurs or such should be avoided?
I don’t think we need political correctness to demonstrate common courtesy or tolerance. As I said, at best it’s a redundant social norm. We don’t need it.

Political correctness IS common courtesy and tolerance. It's just a different name for it. Or what is the difference you perceive?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Political correctness IS common courtesy and tolerance. It's just a different name for it. Or what is the difference you perceive?

Hence, redundant social norm (at best).

The difference is that political correctness is used to control people. It is a way of shaming people into a accepting a certain view point. For instance, I have been very critical of the “in-your-face” philosophy presented by many in the gay rights movement. I don’t think they help the goal of making homosexuality more acceptable by presenting gay people as intolerant of religious views and publicly sexually provocative. That doesn’t mean that I refer to my homosexual friends as “fags,” or think less of them because they aren’t heterosexual. Yet many people on this board and in other circles label me a bigot, in the name of political correctness, because I criticize a political movement they agree with, not because I am. If common courtesy and tolerance is what we want, then I’m okay with that, but there is often an ulterior motive to political correctness. So let’s just simplify the world and do away with it altogether.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Political correctness IS common courtesy and tolerance. It's just a different name for it. Or what is the difference you perceive?
Hence, redundant social norm (at best).

I'm not sure I understand. If it is the same thing, it is merely a synonym. Or do you consider common courtesy and tolerance redundant social norms?

Quote:

The difference is that political correctness is used to control people. It is a way of shaming people into a accepting a certain view point.

Or faking it, yes. How is the expectation of common courtesy not the same thing? Do you consider the expectation of common courtesy wrong in the first place?

Quote:

Yet many people on this board and in other circles label me a bigot, in the name of political correctness, because I criticize a political movement they agree with, not because I am.

I think this is a miscommunication issue. If you are politely disagreeing with their strategies - not their goal - then you shouldn't be criticised. This would only be an example of misunderstood or exaggerated political correctness, not of political correctness itself.

Quote:

If common courtesy and tolerance is what we want, then I’m okay with that, but there is often an ulterior motive to political correctness. So let’s just simplify the world and do away with it altogether.

As I said, the ulterior motive - or not ulterior, but obvious - of political correctness/common courtesy is to manipulate discourse through language. To make it neutral and less biased.

Unless you were violating common courtesy in your criticism or actually exhibited narrow-mindedness, the people who attacked you were not arguing for political correctness but out of intolerance themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not sure I understand. If it is the same thing, it is merely a synonym.

If it is the same thing, then that’s true.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I think this is a miscommunication issue. If you are politely disagreeing with their strategies - not their goal - then you shouldn't be criticised. This would only be an example of misunderstood or exaggerated political correctness, not of political correctness itself.

Or it is political correctness.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
As I said, the ulterior motive - or not ulterior, but obvious - of political correctness/common courtesy is to manipulate discourse through language. To make it neutral and less biased.

But I have a bias. I’m biased against the use to “in your face” tactics. Political correctness does not stop at common courtesy and tolerance it continues to shape point of view and opinion. But why should I be called intolerant or discourteous for not accepting a certain view point or having a certain view point myself?

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Unless you were violating common courtesy in your criticism or actually exhibited narrow-mindedness, the people who attacked you were not arguing for political correctness but out of intolerance themselves.

According to whose definition of political correctness?

If we accept that political correctness is indeed just a synonym for courtesy and tolerance, then it is redundant. However, not everyone believes that’s all political correctness is. I’m not interested in entertaining the intolerant ulterior motives of political correctness so getting rid of it doesn’t hurt anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:25 AM

Quote:
FREM

that concept and discussion needs it's own thread.

Of course

I just watched the first two episodes of elvenlied. It's quite good, and very Japanese. I like it. Parasols and sakura, takes me back.

Quote:
My own beliefs have eastern leanings, but closer to the Black Zen rooted in much misunderstood cults of earlier generations, maltheistic in nature and with a view of the deisms as forces inevitably inimical to humanity because of their very nature.

The forces are.
My favorite taoist line on that is "The forces flow, older and deeper than the world."

Humanity is its own special kettle of fish. the collective unconscious connection, and each of us alone, a construct within ourselves. Yes, most people see just the shadows on the wall. Oh look, people chasing shadows, I appear to have started my own private little war.

Quote:
Whether those deisms are a natural force or an artificial one, either created by those who seek to create the force of their worship (gestalt theory) or a force existing outside the realm of human perception (foreigner theory) is much debated, but their detriment to humanity is not.

I think it goes further than this

Quote:
Anyhow, this really needs it's own thread, and even then expect to be nitpicked by conventionalists.

Oh, I don't think they've noticed that we're even here. You see how easy it is? This is how Vaclav Havel overthrew the communist empire, in the broad light of day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not sure I understand. If it is the same thing, it is merely a synonym.
If it is the same thing, then that’s true.

Well, then I'm glad we agree.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I think this is a miscommunication issue. If you are politely disagreeing with their strategies - not their goal - then you shouldn't be criticised. This would only be an example of misunderstood or exaggerated political correctness, not of political correctness itself.
Or it is political correctness.

Either it is exaggerated, or it is not. You cannot treat both as equal. Either you agree that political correctness is nothing but the expectation of common courtesy OR you insist that it is always an expectation of conformism in opinion. If it is the latter, I will have to disagree with you, but at least you would have stated a definite opinion.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
As I said, the ulterior motive - or not ulterior, but obvious - of political correctness/common courtesy is to manipulate discourse through language. To make it neutral and less biased.
But I have a bias. I’m biased against the use to “in your face” tactics.

Unless it is an irrational dismissal of their strategies, it's not bias, but an opinion.

Quote:
Political correctness does not stop at common courtesy and tolerance it continues to shape point of view and opinion. But why should I be called intolerant or discourteous for not accepting a certain view point or having a certain view point myself?

Are you willing to allow that the people who criticised you may have simply not been examples of political correctness but of intolerance, or do you insist on them being perfect ambassadors for the concept of political correctness/common courtesy because it fits your opinion that political correctness itself is synonymous with intolerance?

You can be called discourteous if you use impolite language. If you were not, they were wrong to call you that.

You can be called intolerant if you are unwilling to tolerate something. I am perfectly willing to be called intolerant with regards to corporal punishment of children, for example. If you were not being intolerant, they were wrong you call you that.

Mind, it was politically incorrect of them to call you those things.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Unless you were violating common courtesy in your criticism or actually exhibited narrow-mindedness, the people who attacked you were not arguing for political correctness but out of intolerance themselves.
According to whose definition of political correctness?

Mine.

I think there is true that some people use political correctness as a front for their own intolerance, but that doesn't make political correctness wrong. It only makes their abuse of it, and their intolerance wrong.

Quote:

If we accept that political correctness is indeed just a synonym for courtesy and tolerance, then it is redundant.

Not redundant, just a synonym. Do you think all synonyms are redundant?

Quote:

However, not everyone believes that’s all political correctness is. I’m not interested in entertaining the intolerant ulterior motives of political correctness so getting rid of it doesn’t hurt anything.

I think you are being too defensive and ascribe the criticism of unskilled debaters to political correctness when it had nothing to do with it.

Why can't you shrug off their unfounded criticism and consider the idea that you were perfectly politically correct and they weren't?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Either it is exaggerated, or it is not. You cannot treat both as equal. Either you agree that political correctness is nothing but the expectation of common courtesy OR you insist that it is always an expectation of conformism in opinion. If it is the latter, I will have to disagree with you, but at least you would have stated a definite opinion.

OR it is not what you think it is. Just because you have a definition of political correctness doesn’t mean everyone else will agree. And a lot of people think political correctness is a tool to impose their point of view.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Are you willing to allow that the people who criticised you may have simply not been examples of political correctness but of intolerance, or do you insist on them being perfect ambassadors for the concept of political correctness/common courtesy because it fits your opinion that political correctness itself is synonymous with intolerance?

It was certainly intolerance of my point of view. Intolerance motivated by a certain view of political correctness – perhaps not the view you hold but a common nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I think there is true that some people use political correctness as a front for their own intolerance, but that doesn't make political correctness wrong. It only makes their abuse of it, and their intolerance wrong.

Well that’s one way to look at it.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Not redundant, just a synonym. Do you think all synonyms are redundant?

Do you know what a synonym is?

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why can't you shrug off their unfounded criticism and consider the idea that you were perfectly politically correct and they weren't?

Because I don’t need to. Why can’t you accept that we can be courteous and tolerant without this philosophical ruse that is often used to promote intolerance?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
OR it is not what you think it is. Just because you have a definition of political correctness doesn’t mean everyone else will agree. And a lot of people think political correctness is a tool to impose their point of view.

So what opinions do you feel are protected by political correctness and which are not? Who uses this tool? If it is supposedly used to impose uniform thought, what uniform thought is supposed to be imposed?

My personal theory is that people who feel defensive about having an unpopular opinion tend to be opposed to the idea of political correctness, not because it demands uniform thought but because it's a good excuse not to have to defend their opinion because all challenges to it must be a form of intolerance against them. And that's how political correctness got the reputation of being what you say it is, a conformism tool.

Quote:

It was certainly intolerance of my point of view. Intolerance motivated by a certain view of political correctness – perhaps not the view you hold but a common nonetheless.

Or maybe it was just intolerance motivated by their own opinions on the matter.

Did they say they were criticising you out of political correctness or is that just your opinion because they critised you unjustly?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Not redundant, just a synonym. Do you think all synonyms are redundant?
Do you know what a synonym is?

Yes. I do not think they are redundant because they enrich our language. Do you think they are redundant?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why can't you shrug off their unfounded criticism and consider the idea that you were perfectly politically correct and they weren't?
Because I don’t need to. Why can’t you accept that we can be courteous and tolerant without this philosophical ruse that is often used to promote intolerance?

Because to me it simply is a synonym for "common courtesy and tolerance". It's not a philosophical ruse.

ETA: If you, like me, are asking yourself why we are arguing about something so inconsequential, I'm perfectly willing to just agree to disagree and call it quits. It really doesn't mean as much to me as my talkative nature might imply.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 12:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The point is: what does the definition of "evil" get us?- Signy

I’ve already explained that.-Finn

Could you explain it again? Maybe it's buried in previous posts but I can't find it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:01 PM

Somewhere up above, Finn commented to AgentRouka, correct me if I'm wrong, "you accept the symptoms, but not the diagnosis" of evil. I find his terminology very telling. It implies that "evil" can exist within an individual person. Like all diagnoses it also cries out for a treatment and the treatment, if I'm not mistaken, in the world view of a man like Finn is something like murder. "Evil" in Finn Land is that characteristic that forfeits a person his or her right to life.

This seems to be why it is so very important for Finn to separate the Ted Bundy's of the world from the rank and file of the merely insane. The question his definition begs is, "Where's the cut-off?" If Bundy is "evil" for raping and murdering 35 women, what about raping and murdering only a few, or just one? Or raping and nearly murdering one. Or raping several. Etc. What level of violence can a person commit and still remain merely insane and not evil, not forfeit his or her right to life?

To me, what Finn calls "evil," serial killers and fascist dictators and the like, are really nature's way of trying to reintroduce some balance into our out-of-control, post-environmental human population. What's a Mother Earth to do? So our deep psyches start to call out for it: death, oblivion, one way or another.

It's very interesting to me that people like Bundy are referred to as "sexual predators," suggesting that they are just a part of our natural environment, an efficient tool attacking human reproduction: if the sexual predator doesn't kill the female outright, or damage her reproductive organs, he will likely render her at least psychologically unable to raise children, or if she does manage to have kids, they will likely grow up aggressive, violent contributors to nature's cause.

There are books written on how modern wars tend to gravitate to those areas of the planet where human life is least sustainable.

In such a context, individual evil is meaningless. Evil is systemic. In fact, murdering the Bundy's and the Hitler's of the world, only serves Nature's "evil" purpose in another way. To combat such evils, we humans instead need to find root causes of violent disturbance, clean up our environments and choose not to live in the wrong places.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:18 PM

Interesting debate going on here. Mind if I chip in? It's a dead duck over at the serenity board. Personally, I'd prefer a discussion with a bit of hate flying around, to where everyone was so polite that nothing ends up being said. But there are degrees that one can put up with.

On good and evil: somehow pagans were so much less black and white. the gods could be capricious, warmongering, drunken, lustful, incestuous, into bestiality and so on, but not strictly speaking 'evil'. Judaism and its offshoots, Islam and Christianity were really into polarisation. God was all good, the devil all bad. That sort of thinking permeates our culture, and in terms of world conflict, its not so very useful, in my view.

Leaving aside serial killers, heinous acts get committed across the political spectrum. War itself is heinous, don't you think? When I think of people who design weapons, it seems to me that's heinous. Sitting down and coldly thinking strategically about how best to kill and maim humans, the more humans the better. eg landmines, so favoured by US forces over the past decades, designed to maim (not even kill) whoever comes in contact with them, soldiers, farmers, children.

When we define the enemy as evil, it means they lose their humanity. In other words, we can do what we like to them because the bastards are less than human. I think that was Hitler's mentality as well, which made him what he was.

Paradoxical, isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:50 PM

MasonsDaughter

Quote:
On good and evil: somehow pagans were so much less black and white. the gods could be capricious, warmongering, drunken, lustful, incestuous, into bestiality and so on, but not strictly speaking 'evil'. Judaism and its offshoots, Islam and Christianity were really into polarisation. God was all good, the devil all bad. That sort of thinking permeates our culture, and in terms of world conflict, its not so very useful, in my view.

This is spot on.

But the concept is dangerous by itself. If it had not existed elsewhere, it would never have become an issue in China in the 6th c. BC. Surely it was not Judaism they were talking about.

Actually, this notion comes up throughout primal cultures, even pagan ones. It's been widespread in subsaharan Africa for as long as we know, and appears in early texts of Mezoamerica, as well as early Europaganism. But it's not the only viewpoint that appears. It's a very destructive idea.

Typically, good defines itself, and then evil, as that which opposes it (The US or Israel vs. radical Islam, or, if you prefer, the other way around.) Once evil has been identified, stopping it is all important. If anything becomes ever all important, than any means can be considered acceptable to that ends, which is the concept that Machiavelli, who would have hated to be remembered for it, has become synonymous.

The self defined good, as the great destroyer of that which opposes it, can become an all consuming force for destruction of diversity, and life. It's very dangerous indeed, and very infectious. Machiavelli wrote the prince because he was threatened by the prince, who promised to bury him and his work. So he wrote it to appease the prince. This is the unwilling, but self-defensive act, which itself, can prepetuate the destructive force that it seeks to end.

A present day example of the same phenomenon is the film "Hero" which was commissioned by the communist govt. Zhang Yimou hated communism, and the fascist imperialism it stood for, and so subversively through historical films had angered the Communists to the point that they gave him the same option. Forced, he capitulated, and made the film, which itself, is a historical film to uphold the fantasy that Totalitarian Collectivism, the sacrifice of self for the glory of the state, is the natural outgrowth of Chinese history, and culture, a fantasy that the Communists cling to and perpetuate, cherrypicking and editing a they see fit until the illusion appears that this was always so, and the present regime is the only logical end result of traditional chinese values, which is the epitome of well designed propaganda. The Nazis were also very good at this sort of thing.

The US tries, but it has little history to draw on, and it seldom looks back further than WWII to find its examples. But we have the good an evil thing down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:52 PM

HK, there is no spoon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MasonsDaughter

This is spot on.

But the concept is dangerous by itself. If it had not existed elsewhere, it would never have become an issue in China in the 6th c. BC. Surely it was not Judaism they were talking about.

[snip]

The US tries, but it has little history to draw on, and it seldom looks back further than WWII to find its examples. But we have the good an evil thing down.

Oh I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't in evidence elsewhere, its just that our tradition of good vs evil comes from Judeo/Christian roots.

Good vs evil is how small children make sense of the world. As they mature, they see that sometimes Mum and Dad are not all good, and that sometimes the bully down the road can be fun after all (ie when s/he's picking on someone else).

Cultures who view the world as good and evil lack maturity, and are very dangerous if they hold a lot of power in the world.

It's about time we all grew up a little. First step might be to stop seeing WW2 as an example of good vs evil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:04 PM

Oh and despite the propagandist element, Hero was a very good film. And thereby I prove my own point. Maybe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:16 PM

No, DT, it's all spoon. Everywhere you look.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA

SPOOOON!!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Typically, good defines itself, and then evil, as that which opposes it (The US or Israel vs. radical Islam, or, if you prefer, the other way around.) Once evil has been identified, stopping it is all important. If anything becomes ever all important, than any means can be considered acceptable to that ends, which is the concept that Machiavelli, who would have hated to be remembered for it, has become synonymous.

Yes, he would have hated how he was remembered,because he wasn't concerned with good or evil, but power and how to keep it. The Prince is a pragmatist's guide on how not to be overthrown, but it was always considered scandalous (even though it has been widely used by many leaders) because it pays no lip service to the morality of good vs evil.

The concept of G v E has been used to dress up the pragmatics of war, and why countries (or states, principalities etc) go to war. Basically, something is needed to pretty up the reality for those fighting (or sending their sons to fight). How much easier is it to contemplate putting your life on the line, accepting that your country is at war if you are combatting evil. Better than "actually we just want to control the oil" or 'we want their land" or any other of the real, economic pragmatic reasons that people fight. Better still if god is on your side.

If you don't pretty it up, its pretty hard for people to palate the consequences of war and you don't do it well enough and the population has a sense that they are once again being used as cannon fodder for the sake of someone else's greed or hubris, you may well find your population turning on you in outrage and disgust ie the 1917 Russian revolution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:39 PM

MasonsDaughter,

You are, again, spot on. esp. re WWII.
Right about everything, spare one:
My point was that the Prince was a commission work, not his personal beliefs, in fact, he would have said, contrary to his personal beliefs. As would Zhang Yimou, who is still alive so we could ask, but I already know. Yet, the writing of a work of propaganda to save ones own progressive work, is, by itself, a means to an end, thus they are both Machiavellians in the end.

HK, you see spoons, does not mean that they are there. It's your belief. The question here is whether or not that belief is good for ourselves. I'm not prone to Matrix references, but there are some definite good ones.

Frem,

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Elvenlied, of course. Not the spoon thing. I think the film, if I dub it so, wins the point. Killers are made, not born.

Select to view spoiler:

The icing on the cake was that at the end, it was Lucy, and not the alternate personality of Lucy.

Of course, a lot of things I could call long before they happened, but that comes with consuming this sort of thing. I didn't waste time, and, oh, catchy tune.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
HK, you see spoons, does not mean that they are there. It's your belief. The question here is whether or not that belief is good for ourselves. I'm not prone to Matrix references, but there are some definite good ones.

DT, I know you were quipping to begin with (though, honestly, I don't quite grok the fullness of what it hadda do with my first post), so maybe this isn't worth going into, but you're soundin' awful serious with this post so I will say.

I don't see spoons, the singular "spoon" in my last post was not a typo. Your/the Matrix's "There is no spoon" presents the old Asiatic obsession with Nothingness and I was countering that orientation with my own Wicco-Shamanistic (I just made that word up) obsession with Imminence/Fullness/Presence. No more a belief than your Nothingness. Yin to your yang, talking about the same thing but seen from the other side.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA

What a perfect display of concept.

One sees the front of the paper, one sees it from the back, and yet another sees it from the edge.

Anyhows..

Quote:
Killers are made, not born.

That's exactly my point, and part of the reason I study the work of Andrew Vachss, Alice Miller and Bruce D Perry - cause the process by which they are created is known, and *can* be fouled or mitigated to where you do NOT end up with a Killer.

Ergo, I strike before the process is complete and sandbag it, and with limited resources the best point of intervention for maximum gain is places that practically create em by assembly line - i.e. behavior mod and boot camp facilities.

Which, of course leads in to how to deprive whatever powers that be of high quality triggermen, does it not ?

"In other times, evil would be fought by good, but in times like these, it is best fought with another kind of evil..."
Aereon - Chronicles of Riddick intro

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Somewhere up above, Finn commented to AgentRouka, correct me if I'm wrong, "you accept the symptoms, but not the diagnosis" of evil. I find his terminology very telling. It implies that "evil" can exist within an individual person. Like all diagnoses it also cries out for a treatment and the treatment, if I'm not mistaken, in the world view of a man like Finn is something like murder. "Evil" in Finn Land is that characteristic that forfeits a person his or her right to life.

So your read on the situation is Finn's "treatment" for evil is death"

Well, Finn? Is this a correct interpretation?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Killers are made, not born.

I'd say that 96% of killers are neurotypical (NT) and are made that way be circumstance. But 4% are born that way and are not retrieved by circumstance.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, Finn? Is this a correct interpretation?

Not completely.

But it’s interesting to note that both you and HK seem to agree with the Christian interpretation of Original Sin. You seem to attribute the Ted Bundy’s of the world to the “lizard brain,” which everyone has. Or every human is capable evil. HK argues that evil is a part of a dichotomy. That both good and evil exist. These are not novel ideas. They have been around for thousands of years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 5:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Not completely.

M'kay. So what IS the complete interpretation?

Quote:
But it’s interesting to note that both you and HK seem to agree with the Christian interpretation of Original Sin.

Not sure how you got from "there" to "here". I don't think people are "intrinsically" selfish. The lizard-brain is capable of all kinds of emotions. Even the most solitary of mammals have to get together long enough to mate, and females to raise young. So a certain amount of altruism is built in, otherwise the species would have died out a long time ago.

But like I said, there are peeps whose brains work differently. And what if the treatment for PTSD, for example, turned out to be something as simple as a beta-blocker?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not sure how you got from "there" to "here". I don't think people are "intrinsically" selfish. The lizard-brain is capable of all kinds of emotions. Even the most solitary of mammals have to get together long enough to mate, and females to raise young. So a certain amount of altruism is built in, otherwise the species would have died out a long time ago.

So you think that there is something distinctly different about Ted Bundy, or do you feel that the potential for Teds exist within all of us?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Not completely.
M'kay. So what IS the complete interpretation?

As usual, HK is making assumptions about the world view of men like Finn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 5:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you think that there is something distinctly different about Ted Bundy, or do you feel that the potential for Teds exist within all of us?

My view of the world is very different from yours. I think there is something very different about Ted Bundy. Any characteristic ... hair color, intelligence, empathy, sexual orientation, height, glucose tolerance ... is described by a bell curve. Most people mostly fall within a couple of standard deviations away from the norm. But in a population of six billion, about 5% are "born" waaaaaaay off the charts in one way or another: the two-headed women in Minnesota. Albinos. Einstein. That's the way it is.

But the way we are born also interacts with the environment. The "average" person certainly has the capacity to be made into a killer because we are, after all, programmable. We have the capacity to cooperate AND the capacity for aggression built in. (Peeps mostly are cooperative: Look at how 95% of us behave.) But some peeps are so lacking in empathy that they must be dealt with differently than the way we'd raise most of us. I think Ted Bundy falls into this "at the end of the bell curve" category.

Quote:
M'kay. So what IS the complete interpretation?-Signy
As usual, HK is making assumptions about the world view of men like Finn.- Finn

But when I ask YOU to explain your view, you sidestep. So how are we supposed to know what to think?

BTW- I've met a killer. He beat his wife to death with a wire coat-hangar. Too bad he was an untreated manic-depressive 'cause he screwed up his whole family.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[But when I ask YOU to explain your view, you sidestep. So how are we supposed to know what to think?

I get tired of explaining and re-explaining the same thing over and over again because I don’t tell people what they want to hear. It doesn’t get us anywhere in the discussion, and it’s not like you can’t scroll up to see exactly what I said earlier.

In any event, I don’t disagree with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm not sure we really agree.

Personally, I think people are mostly NOT responsible for their actions. Between their inborn "set" and their environment and that busy lizard-brain there is very little "free will" involved. Self-programming is beyond most people. It takes a great deal of insight and a life-changing event to self-program. And even then, initial inclinations tend to re-emerge during times of stress.

The point is: What do we DO about that? Punishment works, for some. But look at repeat offenders (which is most offenders): what have they learned???

NOTHING.

The prospect of jail time is not a deterrent. Not even the prospect of death. For people who don't have the capacity to think ahead and to control their impulses "future punishment" is a non-entity.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure we really agree.

Personally, I think people are mostly NOT responsible for their actions. Between their inborn "set" and their environment and that busy lizard-brain there is very little "free will" involved. Self-programming is beyond most people. It takes a great deal of insight and a life-changing event to self-program. And even then, initial inclinations tend to re-emerge during times of stress.

Yeah, we disagree on that.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The prospect of jail time is not a deterrent. Not even the prospect of death. For people who don't have the capacity to think ahead and to control their impulses "future punishment" is a non-entity

This is the second time you’ve made an argument for capital punishment in the last couple of weeks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:17 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Personally, I think people are mostly NOT responsible for their actions."

Sig,

So nothing is ever someones fault, right? There is no such thing as responsibility, self-control, discipline or personal accountability....right?

I'm sure you are not the only one who believes that.

Which is probably why this country is so fraked up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is the second time you’ve made an argument for capital punishment in the last couple of weeks.

So we should kill people because they've been victimized in the past, or been born wonky?

Quote:
Sig, So nothing is ever someones fault, right? There is no such thing as responsibility, self-control, discipline or personal accountability....right?

There is. But the peeps who need it the most are the least likely to be able to exercise it. Like I keep trying to say: everything is on a continuum. No such thing as "no such thing"!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
This is the second time you’ve made an argument for capital punishment in the last couple of weeks.
So we should kill people because they've been victimized in the past, or been born wonky?

According to you, people aren’t responsible for their own actions and there’s little possibility of rehabilitation. This, of course, is one of the major arguments for capital punishment. If a person isn't responsible for his or her actions and can't be changed, then it would be horribly irresponsible for society just to leave such a person at large, and seemingly pointless to incarcerate them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
little possibility of rehabilitation

But that's not what I said. People CAN change, just not always on their own. There are several promising modes of retraining (BTW "boot camp" is not one of them), different programs for different problems. To give you one example: It is a well-known fact that people will tolerate all kinds of abuse, but not tolerate the abuse or suffering of someone else. I've heard three programs that take advantage of that fact by giving angry youths someone else to care about. These programs have <10% recidivism.

Quote:
This, of course, is one of the major arguments for capital punishment. If a person isn't responsible for his or her actions and can't be changed, then it would be horribly irresponsible for society just to leave such a person at large, and seemingly pointless to incarcerate them.

Only if you're a Nazi. Then it's OK to kill the feeble-minded and moral deviants and the very old. For those who are TRULY beyond rehabilitation isolating them is a humane way of keeping others safe. True, it's not very "efficient"... but what are we really interested in anyway? Ultimate efficiency? The perfect race?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:59 AM

Quote:
HK
"There is no spoon" presents the old Asiatic obsession with Nothingness and I was countering that orientation with my own Wicco-Shamanistic (I just made that word up) obsession with Imminence/Fullness/Presence. No more a belief than your Nothingness. Yin to your yang, talking about the same thing but seen from the other side.

Sorry, it was a snark.

I think you mean eminence, not imminence.

I wouldn't say I resent but rather I simply disagree with the indication that eastern philosophy is nihilistic, which is often implied simply because it is atheistic.

As for European faiths, like European culture, there is so little to go on in written text, that it takes a read scholar to get anywhere at all. The best work is probably Lord of the Rings. Personally, I prefer the works of Alistair Crowley to those of Gerald Gardner, which might be in part an eastern bias: Crowley was a Buddhist and Gardner was a devout Christian. I feel the Judeo-Christian principles and language permeate Gardner's work, albeit subconsciously, and that this is actually at odds with my understand of the Celtic tradition he is trying to revive.

Animism is often considered a basic evolution of belief structures of primitive societies. I suspect that it may simply date back to a prehistoric religion. But the Druidic practices of the Celtic faiths, while shamanistic in some regards, also show strong influences of the more traditional pan-aryan belief structure. The very obvious present day aryan religion is hinduism, which is now steeped in ritual over what was undoubtedly the core practice of the seek, but it's influences certainly show up in the zen eastern faiths and as far west as the Assyrian hierarchy, and of course, in the Celtic culture.

Before anyone goes off on the word Aryan, I mean the actual aryans, a dominant culture of central and northern asia around 3000BC, not the nazi fantasy of a master race. Aryan influence in Europe really starts with the Celts in Austria, celtic culture conquered most of the continent. At the peak of the non-imperial Roman republic, If I recall, Rome was about the size of west Virginia, and the Celts controlled almost the entirety of Europe. This is often mistakenly referred to as an empire. There's no real sign of political unity, it was just a pervasive dominant culture. During the Romanization and Christianization of Europe, Celts shrunk back to the furthest holds of Scotland and Ireland. Even the name Ireland is Aryan derived. "Erin Go Bragh" literally means "Aryan Forever."

It's always somewhat annoying to me when people find something fascist or nazi in this. Nazis are/were actually Christian and very middle eastern in their thinking, even socialism is a political ideology rooted in mideast logic. The real reason that the nazis latched on to it was strategic: They needed a support base that would given them enough allies. Even the choice of the Indian Jainist symbol, the swastika, was a manipulative attempt at pan-aryanism, seeking to have India as an ally. This flies in the face of the white supremacist analysis of nazis, also, but I'm way off course. But Aryan culture itself, is a culture, like any other, and one I quite admire. Hitler was neither aryan nor teutonic, nor were many of the allies he ended up with (croats, italians, finns, etc.)

The point being that IMHO, in order to discern the true original culture and religion of Wicca, you would have to recognize both its animist and aryan influences. The latter I can assure you contributed the interwoven patterns, the pentagram, the prominence of the number three, and the reciprocal interconnected karmic ideas. Stone Henge, Kaliak (sp?) and the like are undoubtedly older and animist/shamanistic in their origins.

Celtic culture was displaced around the 2nd to 5th centuries also by germanic invasions from russia. Germanic cultures had some aryan roots but were probably more overall animist, and hero worship, another common primitive cultural construction (see norse faiths, etc.)

I'd be interested to hear your take on it, feel free to rant. I occasionally dabble in celtic research, since I'm of basically celtic/bohemian extraction. My family has a lot of connections to China, which is part of my own personal influence. I actually at some point decided that faith was like a job or a girlfriend or anything else, either you have one or you don't, and if you don't, there seems to be no benefit, so I read all the various religious texts I could find. Taoism was the one which hit closest to the mark for me.

Ironically, it was my brother's recommendation, because his wife is chinese, and I had been studying confucius. She mentioned that Lao Tzu, to her, was probably more potent and important to Chinese philosophy, and to finish the hows and why's I would have to post personal information.

The irony being that me and my brother now get into many fights on philosophical viewpoints, as he takes a globalist and Confucian angle, and I take the more conservative (in eastern terms, as in individualism vs. collectivism, not more militaristic, obviously) Taoist viewpoint, which is really his own fault :).

As for Taoism and the neolithic, there are certainly animist elements to early pre-Lao Taoism, and even some aryan ones (what is now western china was culturally aryan at some point) It's even been suggested that the yin yang is originally an aryan image, but I'm dubious. Chinese core culture was already going very strong by 3000 BC, or more like 2000 BC when the aryans reached western china, and the western areas were far less so at the time. Animism, actually, is still very strong in the Uygar (pronouced Weegur,) or known commonly as Xinjiang, a name which the locals object to because it reaks of Beijing imperialism on the level of names like Manchukuo a la Nippon.

Anyway, Sorry that was a long rant, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Wicco-Shamanism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:10 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Frem:
I'd rather have an uncivil argument that actually resolves or clarifies something rather than one so bound in PC politeness that I can't even make sense out of the positions, much less what's being argued.

I'd rather have a civil argument that actually resolves or clarifies something.

What I *really* want is honesty. Unfortunately, we seem to have either uncivil dishonesty or civil dishonesty on this board. When pushed into a corner with clarifying arguments, many (not all) RWED'ers start hurling personal attacks, accuse the other party of saying things they didn't say, and refuse to answer the questions or make the analogies put to them. Sometimes they do this civilly and with all the politeness in the world. Still damn dishonest.

Let's face it. Many people don't come here to share and learn from one another. They come here to cathart all their frustrations with the world. They come to rant, not to listen. They didn't come to change their minds. They came to beat on somebody else. Why then are we surprised when hatred spews out of this forum all the time?

There are many minds here I would love to engage and learn from. I would love to have a civil discussion with the intelligence here, but it is so much work to have to wade through the emotional litter to get to those few.

I wish I could start a new forum for those who are interested in civil *and* honest examinations of what all is very wrong with this world.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:15 AM

Quote:
I'd say that 96% of killers are neurotypical (NT) and are made that way be circumstance. But 4% are born that way and are not retrieved by circumstance.

Sig

No offense, but I don't even want to know where this came from.

I was refering to the case made by the film, which takes 7 hours to make, it's not good for a throwaway line. And, NT usually I think is for Neurotransmitter. I'm not familiar with neurotypical, but I get the idea. That wasn't the point. Those capable of killing aren't killers, that's the point of the film.

I'd say that this is a very romantic view, and I've been dodging this Bundy argument intentionally. I think, regardless of education and functioning, most "criminal" killers are just dumb as rocks. So, probably are most "sanctioned" killers, who probably outnumber the former. Most of our killers in both cases are substance abuse related.

The romantic redeemable sympathetic villain is intelligent and not neurotypical. Society's undue stress and treatment of the abnormal is more of a danger to itself than anything else.

Personally, I've known a few pure psychopaths, and to a one they were all heavily abused as children, and also substance abusers. I also know many abused children that did not become psychotic.

The "Country of the Kind" situation, which also plays heavily in the film is a strong contributing factor. In my own experience, these people tend to commit suicide. The psychopaths tend to be very arrogant and self-supremacists, which is most likely a defense mechanism, and the substance abuse just robs them of natural restraint.

Also, the psychology of bullies, which I won't rant about, because I'm already off topic and there's a lot that's already out there about it, plays into the situation.

Sorry, not taking a 96:4 as an answer. This is deeply complicated subject. If I may throw a way a line back to your, 96:4 is about the ratio of posts on this forum that I ignore because usually they have analysis not even worthy of a response. I responded to this one, so that says something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:18 AM

Can't take the Sky

Quote:
I'd rather have a civil argument that actually resolves or clarifies something.

xie xie

Quote:
What I *really* want is honesty. Unfortunately, we seem to have either uncivil dishonesty or civil dishonesty on this board. When pushed into a corner with clarifying arguments, many (not all) RWED'ers start hurling personal attacks, accuse the other party of saying things they didn't say, and refuse to answer the questions or make the analogies put to them. Sometimes they do this civilly and with all the politeness in the world. Still damn dishonest.

Let's face it. Many people don't come here to share and learn from one another. They come here to cathart all their frustrations with the world. They come to rant, not to listen. They didn't come to change their minds. They came to beat on somebody else. Why then are we surprised when hatred spews out of this forum all the time?

There are many minds here I would love to engage and learn from. I would love to have a civil discussion with the intelligence here, but it is so much work to have to wade through the emotional litter to get to those few.

No comment, I just wanted to quote it because it was well said.

Quote:
I wish I could start a new forum for those who are interested in civil *and* honest examinations of what all is very wrong with this world.

I intend to, for now, I created the serenity rules, and I think that I'll create a new thread here under Frem's suggestion to deal with a side topic, and try out the serenity rules.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'd say that 96% of killers are neurotypical (NT) and are made that way be circumstance. But 4% are born that way and are not retrieved by circumstance.

Sig No offense, but I don't even want to know where this came from.

Not sure what you're saying.

Movie?

Give me the name so I can "edit find" in this thread and read the reference in it's original context. AFA that 4%... longitudinal studies on children from k-garten through adulthood (of course not done here... we're too damn cheap and lazy for that. Done in places like New Zealand.) The percentage may be off, but the concept remains. I've known too many brain-damaged/ you-name-it-syndrome peeps (mostly my daughter's peers) to harbor even the remotest idea that everyone is born with the same equipment.

It IS a deeply complex subject. Things can go wrong that we have not even the faintest notion how to deal with. Case in point: the thalamus (the area where my DD suffered the most damage). It's not just a "switchboard" (the common view), it's like a orchestra conductor. In order for a stimulus to be processed as a whole it has to happen ALL AT THE SAME TIME in different parts of the brain. So it's the master electrochemical clock. If it bonks, all kinds of processing also bonk, and SSRI-resistant depression and sleep-wake disturbances also occur. I'm not at all trying to imply that this is a simple matter.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:48 AM

FREM

Quote:
Spoon

Ah, Tick.

Quote:
What a perfect display of concept.

Not sure if this was a reference to HK's post?

Quote:
Quote:
Killers are made, not born.

That's exactly my point, and part of the reason I study the work of Andrew Vachss, Alice Miller and Bruce D Perry - cause the process by which they are created is known, and *can* be fouled or mitigated to where you do NOT end up with a Killer.

I concur. I'll have to read this stuff. I have some ideas of my own. I read a fascinating biochem article on the production of certain tryptomines as an encouragement to mating, and the restictions of society which prevent it, and how that leads to a neurochemical response of producing higher tryptomine levels which have the side effect of a tko on the serotonin system, causing intense depression and throwing the system out of balance. I've also wondered if this was also an evolutionary selective mechanism to encourage those who cannot mate to remove themselves, which only works under the model that we continue to evolve even under this imposed social structure, which I think is nefarious and artificial. btw, I find it entertaining watching the neanderthals club each other over the head, and I'm not quite sure what that's a chemical signature of, but I seldom actually read their posts, just glimpses here and there. Just another reason that I avoid sites like CNN, sorry, I had to digress mid-paragraph to encourage no one to read this sentence.

Quote:
Ergo, I strike before the process is complete and sandbag it, and with limited resources the best point of intervention for maximum gain is places that practically create em by assembly line - i.e. behavior mod and boot camp facilities.

I still don't get which institutions you are referring to, I mean, just generally, public school? rehab centers? Juvie? foser care? gangs? A lot of institutions might fit your above description.

this is one of my concerns with the assembly line, my main concern is that it produces unproductive morons. I don't think of myself as smarter than other people, while I tend to excell at thing at which they fail, I've come more to the point of view that most people simply did not escape the programming. I have the benefit of no education. This prevents me from knowing things, and thus having answers. As I'm sure I've said before, answers are just obstacles which prevent questions from continuing on their journey. In addition to the misinformation, and the programming, there is also infophobia which is cultured in our education system, and crapophilia which permeates through the MSM.

I can tell you that, given a time machine, and the mission to stop the holocaust, I would not kill Hitler. I don't think it would do any good. I'm not sure it have any effect. I would talk him out of it, which would mainly consist of two parts: 1) Show how a sustainable reliable labor source loyal to germany would result in victory, whereas relying on "inferior" slave labor would lead to germany's defeat. 2) Show the dangers of domestic and international, govt. and corporate concerns who were pushing to hijack the relocation program, and how this would lead to terrible PR for Germany, but also, how you would need extra levels of deception in order to dissuade those interests into supporting relocation. I suspect the effect of this intervention might be that Germany might win the war, about which I'm completely indifferent. I think if Al Gore had beat George Bush, there would still be an Iraq war. Looking at that situation up close, changing the course of those actions would have been very very hard from a US perspective. An afternoon with Saddam Hussein could have done it. Communication is my obsession du jour, but one of the keys I've learned already is that *who* to communicate with is probably the most important thing.

Quote:
Which, of course leads in to how to deprive whatever powers that be of high quality triggermen, does it not ?

Another thing you have to spell out for me. I have this problem myself: I spend much of my time scheming, and come up with a lot of terms, some of which I see randomly that other people use, like "rabbit hole" but other times, I'm not sure if they get across.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, Finn? Is this a correct interpretation?
Not completely.

But it’s interesting to note that both you and HK seem to agree with the Christian interpretation of Original Sin. You seem to attribute the Ted Bundy’s of the world to the “lizard brain,” which everyone has. Or every human is capable evil. HK argues that evil is a part of a dichotomy. That both good and evil exist. These are not novel ideas. They have been around for thousands of years.

Jesus,

For an educated guy you have some serious problems with reading comprehension, Finn. Or maybe, and I can't really fault you for this, after 150+ posts in this thread all the folks who disagree with you begin to blur together. Evil, in my example, in the context I thought I presented clearly enough, is just anti-survival urges in the human psyche brought on by post-environmental population toxicity: an emergent attempt by nature to curb the epidemic spread of the human species. But, oh yeah, original sin and dichotomy fit in there, too. Somewhere. I'm sure.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
For an educated guy you have some serious problems with reading comprehension, Finn. Or maybe, and I can't really fault you for this, after 150+ posts in this thread all the folks who disagree with you begin to blur together. Evil, in my example, in the context I thought I presented clearly enough, is just anti-survival urges in the human psyche brought on by post-environmental population toxicity: an emergent attempt by nature to curb the epidemic spread of the human species. But, oh yeah, original sin and dichotomy fit in there, too. Somewhere. I'm sure.

They sure do. You’re just using modern rationale for the good-evil dichotomy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So anyway, Finn, any comment my post, in which I question the ultimate purpose of capital punishment?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 18, 2009 9:22 AM