Values: what is the most heinous thing a person can do, what is the most heinous thing a society can do, and if they are different, why? by 1kiki

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Values: what is the most heinous thing a person can do, what is the most heinous thing a society can do, and if they are different, why?

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 18:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1886
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, March 25, 2013 9:48 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Values: what is the most heinous thing a person can do, what is the most heinous thing a society can do, and if they are different, why?

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 10:20 AM

HKCAVALIER

The most heinous thing a person can do is act on a desire to control another person's mind/life. That is the fundamental atom that makes up all society's evils. That way lies seduction, brainwashing, advertising, proselytism, and eventually slavery, prostitution, child abuse, every flavor of oppression. We learn it as children and we endorse it in our government as adults. Without the will and the intent to control other human beings, government as we know it would never arise.

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 1:10 PM

JONGSSTRAW

It's hard to state the "most" because there are many things that I believe are equally heinous. But to answer those specific questions I'd say....

indivudual - child murders like Sandy Hook

society - releasing pedophiles and rapists back into communities

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 3:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The most heinous thing a person can do is act on a desire to control another person's mind/life. That is the fundamental atom that makes up all society's evils. That way lies seduction, brainwashing, advertising, procelytism, and eventually slavery, prostitution, child abuse, every flavor of oppression. We learn it as children and we endorse it in our government as adults. Without the will and the intent to control other human beings, government as we know it would never arise.

^This.
Exactly, Completely, that.

-F

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 3:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"The most heinous thing a person can do is act on a desire to control another person's mind/life."

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to find the limits of your value.

We communicate to influence others, otherwise we wouldn't communicate. Sometimes that influence is very obvious and direct (don't touch - hot), sometimes more subtle (I'm looking to have my being recognized by expressing myself to you). So I see all communication as an attempt to influence the other.

Do you see communication as an attempt to influence? If not, what communication is an attempt to influence, and what communication isn't? And if you accept legitimate influencing, where do do draw the line between that and control?

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 4:30 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The most heinous thing a person can do is act on a desire to control another person's mind/life."

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to find the limits of your value.

We communicate to influence others, otherwise we wouldn't communicate. Sometimes that influence is very obvious and direct (don't touch - hot), sometimes more subtle (I'm looking to have my being recognized by expressing myself to you). So I see all communication as an attempt to influence the other.

Do you see communication as an attempt to influence? If not, what communication is an attempt to influence, and what communication isn't? And if you accept legitimate influencing, where do do draw the line between that and control?

Probably not HKC's answer, but here's mine.

Trying to influence someone is different from trying to control them.

"You might want to think about the health problems you could encounter from drinking all those sugary sodas." is influence.

"I'm passing a law that won't allow anyone to sell you sugary sodas." is control.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 5:09 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey 1k,

Thanks for asking. I recognize that my answer begs a whole lot of questions. That was intentional. It may be difficult to make myself clear as a lot of this stuff is so close to my heart that it is simply, utterly true for me.

For instance, the difference between influence and control. To me it's as if you asked me "Where do you draw the line between daffodils and raw sewage? They're both organic in nature..." So at first I'm thunderstruck and kinda heartsick to hear the question, y'know what I mean?

One thing to consider, perhaps: I tried to specify that the problematic control is that of another person's (1) mind and (2) life. I did not say body or actions or all the other issues that we as humans naturally push and shove about.

The parent who runs out in the street and grabs her baby to save her from the oncoming SUV is indeed, in that instant, controling her child's body. But in that instant the child's mind is free to think and believe and experience whatever occurs and this action in and of itself doesn't negatively impact how she will conduct her life in the largest sense.

On the contrary, this act of control will ensure that she has a life to live. So, there are obviously "grey areas," or more precisely, areas of experience that our language has a distinctly difficult time parsing. To me, there is nothing "grey" about a mother saving her child's life.

Traffic lights are another "control" that do not impact the mind or dictate how we are to live our lives in the largest sense. The other thing about traffic lights is that they are properly understood as agreements/conventions/a freely consented to order to save us as a community from chaos.

So, communication can be entirely neutral when it comes to control. Or, when we tell people the truth of our hearts it can actually free others from controls and restrictions they may have felt. So, the best communication is actually healing and anti-control.

Communication that seeks to influence another in a logical and/or compassionate way and which limits itself to communication when the other party refuses your logic or ignores your compassion is still entirely appropriate. But if your communication has any implicit "or else's" behind it, then that's control.

Another way of describing control is as "the misuse of power." Some feminist writers I'm fond of make the distinction between "power over" and "power among/with." The difference between "Dominator Culture" and "Partnership Culture." This gets at the same issue. In Dominator Culture, domination is seen as necessary, and therefore "good" when it is performed by the "right" folks and for the "right" reasons. In Dominator Culture we learn to strive to be dominators and learn to love domination and people like me see this as a terrible, deep seated sickness in our world.

Also, I referred to the "will AND THE INTENT" to control. Sometimes we must have the will to control as in the case of the mother running into the street. But she needn't have the intent. Sometimes we will ourselves to control others instinctually. For instance, if someone tries to kill me, I may find myself doing everything I can to control them and prevent them from harming me or those I love. In this case I have a will to do so, but it was never my intention to do it before they came at me. Self defense is not a problem. But as soon as the threat is over and my safety is certain, it would be evil for me to pursue a course of violence against my attacker. Then it's cruelty and shades quickly into torture which is a manifestation of the greatest evil.

Does that help?

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 5:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Yes, I have a better understanding of what you mean, though I guarantee it's not perfect.

The extremes are these: force either actual or implied is the one extreme, complete openness and equality of influence is the other.

But there are grey areas for me. What about teaching children through reward in order to influence their behavior? What about indoctrination (as some closed sects in the US practice), where minds and choices are limited (not only through punishment and fear, but also) simple absolute control of what they get to learn about?

I can see how either could be well-meant, or pernicious. For example, I've dealt with an extremely oppositional child whose 'personality' came from a series of neurological injuries. I also saw an extremely sweet side to that child, a part of them I intentionality fostered to help smooth their way to interacting with others. But if I were a pedophile, I could use the same techniques to my benefit. Or if I were Amish, I might want to teach my children about finding peace in the world rather than expose them to the media lesson of how to be a more avaricious consumer in a consumerist culture. But if I were the FLDS I might want to teach my girls that the pinnacle of their existence is being chosen by an old important guy as another wife.

I'm not sure you agree with reasoning, but some choices I find acceptable and others - I don't, while the techniques for either scenario - deliberate reward, isolation - remain the same.

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 5:45 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It's hard to state the "most" because there are many things that I believe are equally heinous. But to answer those specific questions I'd say....

indivudual - child murders like Sandy Hook

Is is different when it's done by a B-52 or a drone strike? Is it somehow less heinous when children are murdered by our military? The children can't tell the difference.

Quote:

society - releasing pedophiles and rapists back into communities

What do you propose to do with them?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 6:19 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What about teaching children through reward in order to influence their behavior?

Punishment and reward are the primary tools of mind control. If what you're teaching is sensible then eventually the child will get it without the reward. If the child wouldn't learn it without the reward then there's something wrong with the teaching. Basically, teaching through reward is training the child to behave as an addict. It's seriously effed up, kiki.

Quote:
What about indoctrination (as some closed sects in the US practice), where minds and choices are limited (not only through punishment and fear, but also) simple absolute control of what they get to learn about?

Yeah, that's effed up, too, but there may be palliatives as with the Amish and their Rumspringa. But that's kinda dicey 'cause the children have been heavily indoctrinated for their entire lives already. But it is at least a healthy tradition and goes part of the way at least to not controlling the child's life in its largest sense.

Quote:
I can see how either could be well-meant, or pernicious.

Well-meant don't cut muster with me if it involves mind control. Again, in Dominator culture we're taught that domination is good, but to my mind, it evinces the darkest contempt for the human being.

Quote:
For example, I've dealt with an extremely oppositional child whose 'personality' came from a series of neurological injuries. I also saw an extremely sweet side to that child, a part of them I intentionality fostered to help smooth their way to interacting with others. But if I were a pedophile, I could use the same techniques to my benefit. Or if I were Amish, I might want to teach my children about finding peace in the world rather than expose them to the media lesson of how to be a more avaricious consumer in a consumerist culture. But if I were the FLDS I might want to teach my girls that the pinnacle of their existence is being chosen by an old important guy as another wife.

All of this is mind control. Fundamentally disrespectful to the developing human being. If what you're teaching your child is true, you needn't limit their information. And if you're a pedophile you're intention to control is all-consuming and warps anything you do. When you control a person's mind, you have taken control of their life. "I think therefore I am," and if you make me think something, I am what you determine me to be. That's evil.

Quote:
I'm not sure you agree with reasoning, but some choices I find acceptable and others - I don't, while the techniques for either scenario remain the same.

Mind control is a thoroughly accepted practice in our culture going at least as far back as biblical times. Proselytism is pure evil. Advertising as it is practiced in our world today is deeply corrupt and destructive. No one has to seduce anyone to accept the truth or to buy something that's actually useful.

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

Monday, March 25, 2013 6:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Basically, teaching through reward is training the child to behave as an addict. It's seriously effed up, kiki."

I'm not talking about anything as mechanical as - oh, offering a piece of candy or a toy - in order to train a behavior Pavlov-style. In this case reward was simple recognition and genuine appreciation of the place where the generous and sweet spirit came from, rather than letting it pass by unnoticed. But skilled pedophiles don't always use rewards as crude as candy or toys either, they sometimes play on the need to feel validated or special.

In my case, the reward was offered in the spirit of at least my truth (as I don't lay claim to a universal one), but the mechanics between my interaction and that of a pedophile are the same.

Which leads to some interesting parsing.

I'm curious how you parse it.

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

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:40 AM

HKCAVALIER

Rewards is rewards is rewards. Doesn't matter if it's a new corvette or a smile. And by reward I'm talking about preconditions.

If you spontaniously want to "reward" someone for doing something or being wonderful, if you're overwhelmed with gratitude and feel compelled to express it, go for it! That's not what I'd call a "reward system." But when you explicitly or implicitly tell your child/friend/lover/spouse that IF they do X you will give them gifties, you're exercising power over them and that's not cool. That kind of "reward" defines your relationship as essentially unequal and it defines the recipient's every action, every personal goal or fulfillment as SECONDARY to PLEASING their chosen authority (you).

It is the mechanism of low self-esteem: "I don't matter, the happiness of my beloved/chosen authority matters more than I ever will." And AS SOON as you institute such rewards, you implicitly institute punishment, even if all that punishment amounts to is "no smile this time."

Punishment/reward is so deeply ingrained in western culture (aided and abetted by addictive maladaptation in our brain chemistry); it's the basis of the profit motive that devalues the work we actually do in accordance to the money value we arbitrarily attach to it; it's the basis of Christian philosophy and essentially keeps Christians childish and in their addictive mind, always trying to please a perfect being that takes care of them by abandoning them again and again. (And sure, some Christians are saner than that, less rigid, more engaged with paradox and mystery, but this is the template. This is why it's remained so popular for two centuries.)

Both you and the pedophile take advantage of the child's instincts for personal gain. The natural child is not so much inclined to please you (that's learned behavior), but the child's empathic/relational nature wishes to find ways to bring you happiness unconditionally. That nature can be twisted into a conditional (please me or suffer the consequences) or it can be nurtured with gratitude and reciprocity (thank you so much, I love you, too).

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

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I appreciate your perspective.

It may have sounded like this: "But when you explicitly or implicitly tell your child/friend/lover/spouse that IF they do X you will give them gifties ..." but it wasn't.

I was stymied at how to draw the distinction and my use of the word 'reward' probably skewed the discussion, as well as my thinking.

From my background, biologically it is called a reward system b/c it's built-in (on the average) to find cooperation and mutuality and freely given recognition from the other pleasurable. It makes the things that our fragile species needs to do to survive more likely to get done. That's where I got the word from, and I think while appropriate from my background, it may have caused some communication trouble.

It was more like this: "If you spontaneously want to "reward" someone for doing something **or being wonderful**, if you're overwhelmed with gratitude (**or awe**) and feel compelled to express it, go for it!"

But the difference between manipulation by conditional rewards and genuine expression seems to me to essentially come down to internal things on the part of the active party not immediately observable from the outside: honesty of expression and intention.

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

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:47 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But the difference between manipulation by conditional rewards and genuine expression seems to me to essentially come down to internal things on the part of the active party not immediately observable from the outside: honesty of expression and intention.

Yes, exactly. That's why it's impossible to legislate good and evil.

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

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:39 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Values: what is the most heinous thing a person can do, what is the most heinous thing a society can do, and if they are different, why?

\

I would say that the most heinous thing a person could do would be to see something unspeakable being done to another person and simply allow it to continue without intervening. Not only that, but following that up with whatever self defense mechanisms and reasoning (see: lies) that one would tell themselves after the fact so that they can remain just as "in control" of their own life while they tell themselves that they didn't even "see it all happening".

Society, at least our society, thrives on this....

"Darwining" the shit out of every single person possible until they are slaves to money and/or values and/or whatever else public opinion opines today.

Why is it different? Well... I can only speak on my own personal level.

I've been stabbed in the back literally with a knife while trying to right a wrong on an individual level.

In the mean time, people like me who can barely make ends meet still have to spend over 1/4 of their income supporting people who supposedly can't support themselves.

In reality, I'm just paying a very small portion of one of tens of thousands of government employees who are in charge of making sure that we don't all just kill each other.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE