REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Violence as Deterrent

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Sunday, March 29, 2009 17:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3260
PAGE 2 of 3

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

The non-aggression principle seems very sound:



The fun part of the non-aggression principle, as a "simple solution", is that either you'd have to either have a majority of the people strictly enforce it(as in "You aggress against me and I kill you dead"), or you'd have to have a government strong enough to enforce it. Either way, I suspect that the enforcement would probably be too much for a lot of folks who believe that aggressors are just mis-understood or products of the problems with society.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:09 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Aggressors often are the misunderstood products of problems with society.

Which factors not at all into the action of stopping them. It factors only into the process of preventing them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:12 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 rue:
AnthonyT


Thinking about it further - I don't think the problem is the need for guns. I think it's the breakdown of 'civil' society.

And I can't think of one heavily armed society* that I'd want to live in - Afghanistan ? The Congo ? Somalia ?

Guns simply don't improve the society and make it better, more law-abiding or more considerate.


* Finland's gun ownership rate is far below that of the US. Also, most guns in Finladn are dbl brl shotguns or hunting rifles.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.




I'm late to the game, and just now catching up in depth on this thread, so some of this may already be posted later in the thread, and I just haven't read it yet...

"Heavily armed society" that you might want to live in? How about Switzerland? True, they don't have as many guns per resident as the U.S. does, but they're right up there, according to Wiki:

Quote:

Country/Guns per 100 residents/Year
United States 90.0 2007
Yemen 61.0 2007
Switzerland 46.0 2007
Iraq 39.0 2007
Serbia 37.5 2007
France 32.0 2007
Finland[5] 32.0 2008
Canada 31.5 2007
Sweden 31.5 2007
Austria 31.0 2007
Germany 30.0 2007
New Zealand[2] 26.8 1993
Saudi Arabia 26.3 2007
Greece 23.0 2007
Angola 20.5 2007
Thailand 16.0 2007
Australia 15.5 2007
Mexico 15.0 2007
South Africa 13.1 2007
Turkey 13.0 2007
Argentina 12.6 2007
Italy 12.1 2007
Pakistan 12.0 2007
Spain 11.0 2007
Russia 9.0 2007
Ukraine 9.0 2007
Brazil 8.8 2007
Colombia 7.2 2007
United Kingdom 5.6 2007
Iran 5.3 2007
Philippines 4.7 2007
India 4.0 2007
China 3.5 2007
Nigeria 1.0 2007



Clearly, I think some of the LEAST heavily armed societies are ones you definitely wouldn't want to live in. China? Nigeria? Columbia? Mexico? Russia?

From these numbers, it seems it's not the GUNS, but rather the society they're in, and WHO has the guns. In Mexico, that means police and criminals, almost exclusively. How's that working out for them? In China, it seems the guns are in the hands of the government and ONLY the government - which is fine unless you happen to be a dissident there...

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...




The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:16 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 AnthonyT:
Rue,

I appreciate your faith in me. In fact, I enjoy violence in my television shows, movies, and video games, but abhor it in my life. Each gun I've ever owned has been accompanied by a silent prayer. May I never, ever find occasion to draw this on a person. Violence is only ever fun in the make-believe world. I never want to do more than imagine the horror of actually ending a life. I think it would haunt me forever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



Thanks for putting that so succinctly, Anthony. It mirrors my own feelings on the matter.

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:24 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 AnthonyT:

Hello,

I do not mind any reasonable process to purchase a firearm. Reasonable meaning this to me:

1) Everyone should be able to afford it. Any fee associated with the qualification process should be within the means of poverty-stricken Americans, and perhaps even payable with the aid of government assistance.

2) Every law-abiding adult-minded citizen should be able to purchase a firearm. This means if you haven't broken the law, and have the reasoning capacity of an adult, you should not be barred.

3) Mental instabilities/disabilities/illnesses should only factor into the equation if the individual either A) can not reason as an adult or B) represents a harm to others due to the nature of their illness.

4) The process for qualification should be as brisk and efficient as possible, with no artificial padding of waiting periods or other delays. If a person qualifies, they qualify.

5) The process for qualification should be routinely examined to make sure it is not being used as a tool to disallow firearms from the citizenry. Especially the process should be routinely vetted against any political leanings or influence. The basic premise of the process should always be that 'Any law-abiding adult has a right to own firearms.'

6) The process for qualification should include some sort of training for the weapon(s) in question, with a focus on legal use and basic safety. The test to confirm this knowledge should be very basic, and tied especially to item 5.

There are a lot of concessions I'd be willing to make in regards to my right to own and carry firearms. I am prepared to be very reasonable.

My problem has always been those that do not recognize my right, and who wish to enact legislation not as a tool to enable it, but rather as a tool to eliminate it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



I'd especially like to shine some light on your item #5. Many here probably don't know, but in many, MANY areas of this country, even where there ARE legal right-to-carry laws on the books, and concealed-carry licenses are legally available (technically, at least), there exist loopholes in whether or not a citizen can obtain such a license. Lots of places word the laws as "the Sheriff or Chief Law Enforcement Officer MAY issue" such a permit, instead of saying that he WILL issue the permit. As such, there have been cases where CLEOs (Chief Law Enforcement Officers) have decided, for their own political reasons and leanings, that they won't issue such permits to anyone, or to certain groups or individuals, regardless of whether they meet every legal criteria to obtain such a permit.

There are battles being fought to change these wordings from "may issue" to "shall issue", because if you've gone through all the classes, paperwork, training, background checks, and paid the fees, it sucks more than a little to have a sheriff with an axe to grind simply say, "Too bad, so sad, no permit for you."

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...




The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:40 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 SignyM:
...while people should be able to defend themselves. the presence of guns BY THEMSELVES do not create a civil society.


So, the next question is: If guns do not improve society, do they actively cause it to deteriorate? Do they foster "the Myth of Redemptive Violence", or can you have a civil society AND widespread gun ownership at the same time?.



Signy, see the table I pulled from Wiki, and ask yourselves those questions.

The presence of guns BY THEMSELVES doesn't destroy a civil society.
Can you have a civil society AND widespread gun ownership at the same time? I'd say "yes" - probably as easily as you can have an un-civil society and no widespread gun owndership, or any combination of those things.

As I said above, I think it's not the guns, but rather their surrounding society that needs to be looked at with a fresh eye.

I'm not fighting with you, or even disagreeing. Just pointing out a few eye-opening factoids that help put the issue in a bit of a different light, and hopefully give one a fresh perspective and a few eye-opening moments.

Iraq is semi-heavily-armed, and by all accounts is pretty much a hell-hole nowadays. Switzerland has more weapons per person than Iraq, and seems to be as polite as can be. England has very few, and seems okay with that. Mexico has relatively few, and from the news reports seems to be the Wild West by comparison. So what are the similarities between these places, and what are the key differences?

Just a few things to ponder...

(Yes, Rip, I'm taking it back!)

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...




The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:53 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 SignyM:
Quote:

Signy seems to think it's somehow important to point out that not all people seeking a CCW permit would be responsible with their guns. Um. So, because some vanishingly small percentage of folks would be irresponsible, that means what exactly? There are plenty of ways for irresponsible people to get guns--seems going through the process of aquiring a CCW permit would be a self-selecting process for a slightly more responsible crowd
I think you're making too much of what was a minor point on my part, HK. I was simply rebutting Frems' point that ALL CCW'ers are automatically responsible.

My real point is the question whether guns are "the answer", "the problem", both, or neither (irrelevant). I'm leaning towards the "may be part of the problem or irrelevant" simply because... just as incarceration hasn't seemed to deter crime, neither will widespread gun ownership. Something else is at work. I dont' know if its the media, a culture of greed (captalism), the myth of redemptive violence, dependence on religion, or fluoride in the water ... but something is seriously awry with our society and I dont' see guns solving that problem.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.




You're definitely onto something here, Sig. But where I think you lose your train of thought is in falling into the trap of supposing that there is ONE problem, ONE area of issue, that ONE thing that, if we could just do away with THAT, everything else would fall right into place. It's not one thing - it's everything. (And you're far from alone in wondering what "the problem" is)

People are people, and are generally all quite similar - UNTIL you put them in a society or caste and instill that mindset into them for a few (or a few thousand) generations. It's not that guns are our problem, or the media, or greed, or religion - it's ALL of the things that make up our uniquely American society.


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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:05 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 Fremdfirma:
Thank you, Anthony.

I do dispute that 80% figure though, I think it's lower than that for the same reason most folk won't pocket a pack of chewing gum while picking up groceries - it's simply beneath our human dignity to do so, and a petty, malicious act barred far more by our own conscience than any threat of consequence.




On that note, a co-worker went to Wal Mart today at lunch to pick up a few things. When he got back, he told me that he didn't think they'd charged him for the new toothbrush he bought; apparently it fell down to the side of the cart, and he hadn't noticed until he was unloading the cart at his car. He checked his receipt, noted that the toothbrush wasn't on there - and then drove back to Wal Mart to pay them their $0.96!

So not only did he NOT want to steal, he actually went back to make it right. Not out of any threat of legal consequences, either, because he was already free and clear - but simply because it's against his very nature to steal. Even from Wal Mart.

Gave me a bit of faith in humanity, that did...

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:12 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:

Geezer wrote:


And there's yer problem right there(not your problem, SignyM. "The" problem).

There is no "the answer". Or, to paraphrase Mencken, "For every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it is wrong."



Bingo! Geez and I find ourselves in a rare moment of complete agreement!

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...




The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:13 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)


And with that marathon of replies, I think I'm finally caught up in this thread. And off to bed...

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...




The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I think a lot of the reason that the Wild West is romanticized so much is because in some cases it really was a more polite society. Wild West movies always depict bloody violence, because they are action films after all. But the shooting violence of the real Wild West could be neatly catalogued in a tome or two. Barring warfare or revolution, this same thing could probably be said of Victorian England, or most western countries at the time. It was an age when people seemed to hold life in higher regard, and when people seemed to have more manners. (Though this is debatable depending on what sorts of things offend you.) There were probably great and horrible miscairrages of justice back then, too, but this doesn't stick in the popular memory (unless you are of Mexican, Chinese, or African American descent, in which case the stories of injustice are probably carried on in family tellings.)


That would be the romanticised view. In reality there were more Gun murders in Victorian London than there are now. There was more violence through out the west. Life was cheap, and politeness was often a shallow facade over the real uglyness of squalor and gang warfare. None of our respective social problems are new by any stretch.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Guns aren't the answer. Taking guns away isn't the answer. Jailing all criminals, or letting them all go, isn't the answer. If the answer was simple we'd have figured it out by now. We're not dealing with 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. We're dealing with 300 million individuals who each have different things that set them off or calm them down. You got folks who will kill over a perceived insult, and others who wouldn't ever use force to save their lives. One size does not fit all.
Yes, but... There is some factor -or several factors- in the USA which drive more people to violence here than in any other industrialized nation. Our nearest neighbor, in terms of murder rate, is about half of ours, and the next nearest is about a fifth. So while we are all individuals, as individuals we are reacting to (a) common factor(s) which is ... while not "unique" to the USA... certainly here is greater degree than in other nations of similar development and ethos.

ONE of the factors that sticks out like a sore thumb is our heavy emphasis on "individualism" and our distrust of anyhting that smacks of "socialism". Even Australia, that famous nation of rugged individualists bred from prison-stock- has nationalized health care and no death penalty!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:23 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Even Australia, that famous nation of rugged individualists bred from prison-stock- has nationalized health care and no death penalty!"

And when they outlawed gun ownership, crime skyrocketed. They allowed themselves to be taken in by the semingly innocuous socialism.

Yes, we are nation of individuals. And damn proud of it.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And when they outlawed gun ownership, crime skyrocketed
Their burglarly and car theft rate is about three times ours, but their firearm murder rate (0.00293678 per 1,000) is one-tenth ours (0.0279271 per 1,000). You would have to look at the details of gun ownership across a wide variety of nations in order to draw any sort of correlation. For example, Norway has a very high rate of gun ownership and a vanishingly low rate of burglarly. BUT the rules of gun ownership in Norway require that the gun be locked away in a burlgar-proof safe, which is not useful for home defense. OTOH, Finland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and while it per capita firearm murder rate is very high, so is its burglary rate.

While perusing the topic, I came across these papers, which I found interesting:
Quote:

Some social factors appear to have enormous impact on violent crime. Two social factors in particular have been getting increased attention from researchers lately; the first is media violence. Many sociologists do not consider it an accident that the crime wave that hit America in the 60s and 70s coincided with the first television generation coming of age. Dr. Brandon Centerwall has produced one of the most famous studies, which found that the mere introduction of television into a region causes its crime rate to double as soon as the first television generation comes of age. (1) In a 22-year study of 800 children from grade 2 to early adulthood, Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann found that the best predictor of later aggression was a heavy childhood diet of TV violence -- more so than poverty, grades, a single parent in the home or exposure to real violence. (2)

The second is income inequality. Although absolute poverty levels do not correlate too significantly with the crime rate, income inequality does (oddly enough). Two separate studies, one from Harvard, the other from Berkeley, compared state crime rates to their income inequality rates, and found that the states with the most inequality had the highest rates of homicide, violent crime and incarceration. This correlation holds internationally as well; Europe has much lower levels of inequality than the U.S., and much lower violent crime rates as well. In the U.S., the rising murder rate has accompanied a rising level of income inequality. In 1968, the Gini index of income inequality was a record low .348; by 1994, it had risen to .426, the highest level since the Great Depression. (3)


www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
Quote:

If anything, a review of the European experience demonstrates more guns correlating with less murder. Nine European nations (including Germany, Austria, Denmark and Norway) have more than 15,000 guns per 100,000 members of the population. Nine others (including Luxembourg, Russia, and Hungary) have fewer than 5,000 guns per 100,000 members of the population. But the aggregate murder rates of these nine low-gun-ownership nations are three times higher than those of the nine high-gun-ownership nations.

Some groups, particularly the gun lobby, might argue that this shows how widespread gun ownership actually reduces violence rates. There is substantial evidence that this is true in the United States, where gun ownership for self-defense is very common. But there is no evidence that Norwegians, Germans and other Europeans often keep guns for defense.

The reason that European nations with more guns tend to have lower violence is political rather than criminological. Gun ownership generally has no affect on how much violent crime a society has. Violent crime is determined by fundamental economic and sociocultural factors, not the mere availability of just one of an innumerable bevy of potential murder instruments. Politicians in nations with severe crime problems often think that banning guns will be a quick fix. But gun bans don't work; if anything, they make things worse. They disarm the law-abiding while being ignored by the violent and the criminal. Yet nations with severe violence problems tend to have severe gun laws. By the same token, the murder rates in handgun-banning U.S. cities -- New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C. -- are far higher than in states like Pennsylvania and Connecticut, where handguns are legal and widely owned.


http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

What I'm getting out of this is that... in nations like ours which are breeding grounds for violent crime (due to economic and sociological factors) gun bans don't work, but that in nations which enjoy general security and prospertiy, gun bans are unecessary.





---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yes, we are nation of individuals. And damn proud of it.
Wow. I wish we were all as self-reflective as you!


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:17 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

What I'm getting out of this is that... in nations like ours which are breeding grounds for violent crime (due to economic and sociological factors) gun bans don't work, but that in nations which enjoy general security and prospertiy, gun bans are unecessary.


What I get is that the availability of guns has nothing to do with crime rate.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Seems to be the case. However, there is a lot of information both for and against gun bans which I haven't gone through.

NOTE: This is an area in which Rue and I disagree.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:35 AM

CHRISISALL


All the old AIG guys should have guns.


The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:46 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


They are going to need them. lol

But then again, with the way things are going.. we all are pretty soon.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I have time for just one quick post -

Can anyone cite me a heavily armed society where interpersonal weapons are the gun of choice that is peaceful and civil ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:22 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


United States 90.0 2007
Yemen 61.0 2007
Switzerland 46.0 2007
Iraq 39.0 2007
Serbia 37.5 2007
France 32.0 2007
Finland[5] 32.0 2008
Canada 31.5 2007
Sweden 31.5 2007
Austria 31.0 2007
Germany 30.0 2007

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Siggy, not to mention it's so often and heavily distorted getting any meaning out of it is next to impossible, cause both sides spin and cherrypick to such a degree it loses all meaning.

But like I said, we got deeper problems than that.

Way I see it, the only net effect of trying to remove them would be leaving folk even more defenseless against the barbarians our social, economic, and educational systems seem bent on creating by the dozens every day.

And depending on them for a solution is every bit as idiotic, even in the logistical sense cause even if you HAD enough weapons and ammo to shoot the "bad guys" - all you're gonna wind up with that way is an ever mounting pile of corpses which just multiplies by spreading the ire to their friends, family and aquaintences who will retaliate back and forth and all you're doing is spinning your wheels accomplishing not a damn thing while the body count rises - kinda like we're doing in a Iraq.

Now one on one, in a personal defense situation, sure, I can see and even advocate the use - but as an en-masse social solution ?

The very idea is pre-posterous, innit ?

The solution lies in not creating barbarians in the first place, and subverting them before they calcify - if you look at the backgrounds of these folk the causes are so clear it's painful, but the things that *cause* these problems are a codified and honored part of our social traditions, and somehow considered "good" despite how obviously, blatantly damaging they are.

So you have kind of the entire society that's whining about the end result of these folk, striving AS HARD AS THEY CAN to create them en-masse at the other, and worse, fighting tooth and claw against folk like me to do it!

As long as our society idealises and venerates sociopathy, and teaches a learned form of it as a necessary survival mechanism in the public education system, then allows it to calcify to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from an original neural misfire, there's just no hope of improvement.

Guns have not a damned thing to do with it and never did - but I know that when I come face to face with one of these monsters our society has intentionally, willfully and gleefully created, all the while decrying the very destruction they cause and claiming it's because they weren't brutal ENOUGH to them as children...

I damn sure want close to hand the only real argument they're capable of comprehending anymore.

WHO IS THE SERIOUS, VIOLENT, HABITUAL OFFENDER?
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html

He simply does not feel anyone's pain but his own. This is a learned response. People are not born like this.

The second characteristic is lack of perception of the future. He has none. If you ask a kid like this, "What are you going to be doing next year?" you will get an absolutely blank stare. Not because he's stupid, but because he simply cannot conceptualize such a distance from right now.


See, that's all they know...
Right. Now.
The possibility of arrest, incarceration, future sentencing, none of that means a damn thing to them, nada - even less than nothing because in their worldview, which is all too often correct, though I'll be damned as a heretic for admitting that, our justice system is even more of a gamble than a roulette wheel, so why worry about it ?

But the deep dark hole of a pistol aimed at them about to punch a hole through some vital part of THEM, oh yes, they understand that - because that's Right-Here-Right-Now, that's imminent and immediate threat of harm or death, the only language they're *capable* of understanding anymore.

And it annoys the ever living hell out of me that we as a society allow it to come to that when there are so MANY chances before that point to make it not happen at all - but all are rejected in favor of the idiotic social "wisdom" which created the situation in the first place, which CLEARLY DOES NOT WORK.

We built every one of these monsters, piece by piece, full and complete - every one of us who's ever contibuted to or supported our current conventional society is at some point guilty of the crime, and by proxy guilty of the criminal.

Me, I fight against it even if that means being a heretic, despised as a destructive or "evil" element*, and vilified, cause it's just so damn cheap at the price when the benefits are so tremendous for even the smallest effort, cause even one single helping witness can turn aside many lives from that path even if powerless to actually intervene.
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lang=en&nid=41&grp=11

In the end, guns have nothing to do with it, and are in fact a needless distraction from a more primary issue, soaking up time effort and resources we really should not waste on fighting over which scapegoat we wanna dump the blame on this week, this year, in our abject denial of the real root causes.

*Annoying irony this, since not respecting the rules makes one Chaotic, and working against society, even a wicked one, is considered Evil...

Technically that makes me "Chaotic Evil".

So trying to make the world a better place for everyone in it makes you a villain, according to this society.

And THAT, folks, oughta tell you everything you need to know about what that society really IS, oughten it ?

-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  

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:26 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Cause I just can't NOT do it...

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:38 AM

AGENTROUKA


Hey Frem,

something I've been meaning to ask you.

I'm always very disturbed (in a thought-provoked sense) by your diatribes against how children are 'dehumanised' and by society, by how we create monsters, and while I certainly don't plan on disagreeing that there are things going very wrong, I'm always very fuzzy on what you would consider right, in a concrete and specific way. I'm really not asking to be snarky, but because I've been wondering. You're always sort of vague, with terms like "children are people" and "don't treat children like property", but I doubt most people set out to treat their children as objects on purpose.

What, specifically, do you feel parents should do better, and are there really so few who do it right?

Could we maybe start a new thread about this? Since it's obviously somewhat OT here.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


ALSO:
Quote:

Cooper created the Violence Intervention Program (VIP) at the Shock Trauma Unit of the University of Maryland Medical Center, the state's busiest hospital for violent injuries. It became one of the country's first hospital-based anti-violence programs.

"We approached this problem like any public health crisis, like heart disease or smoking," he said. "We tried to work on the root causes." Since 1998, VIP has provided substance abuse counseling, job skills training and other support services to nearly 500 trauma victims.

"Using that scalpel blade to save their life is the first step," Cooper said. "The next step is to try to keep them from coming back."

A 2006 study by Cooper and his colleagues, published in the Journal of Trauma, showed that people in the program were six times less likely to be readmitted with a violent injury and three times less likely to be arrested for a violent crime.

www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/25/cnnheroes.carnell.cooper/index.html

Or we could kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out! Seems to be our preferred answer to a LOT of things.


---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:11 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"What I get is that the availability of guns has nothing to do with crime rate."

But it has a lot to do with the murder rate. It's so much easier to kill with a gun than a knife or bat.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"People are not born like this."

Ahem - yes, they are. Children are remarkably, if unknowingly, inconsiderate and even cruel - grabbing toys with their little hands, squishing ants with their little fingers, poking dogs with their little sticks ...

Children have to learn empathy like they learn anything else.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm always very fuzzy on what you would consider right, in a concrete and specific way.
Don't take the "might makes right" approach with children. Don't assume they are for YOUR benefit, or reflect on YOUR self-worth. Be fair. Listen to what they have to say. ACT as you want them to behave.

Right frem?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:33 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Children are remarkably, if unknowingly, inconsiderate and even cruel - grabbing toys with their little hands, squishing ants with their little fingers, poking dogs with their little sticks ...


My son is on a crusade at his school to protect fireflies from being disturbed or killed by kids there.


The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:50 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I'm always very fuzzy on what you would consider right, in a concrete and specific way.
Don't take the "might makes right" approach with children. Don't assume they are for YOUR benefit, or reflect on YOUR self-worth. Be fair. Listen to what they have to say. ACT as you want them to behave.

Right frem?




Seems reasonable... So is this behavior actually so rare in parents, in such a fundamental way that it is shaking society apart and making children violently vicious?

I mean, obviously parent-child relationships are often complex and have difficulties. Many people in my circle of friends had issues with their parents that messed them up in some way, myself included, but it didn't turn them inhuman. How wide-spread is the kind of emotional abuse that would turn children violent and dangerous?

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Seems reasonable... So is this behavior actually so rare in parents, in such a fundamental way that it is shaking society apart and making children violently vicious?

I mean, obviously parent-child relationships are often complex and have difficulties. Many people in my circle of friends had issues with their parents that messed them up in some way, myself included, but it didn't turn them inhuman. How wide-spread is the kind of emotional abuse that would turn children violent and dangerous?


I think neglect is probably more widespread and damaging. Most parents don't seem to give a fuck.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


As widespread as drug abuse, alcoholism, and a family history of abuse?



---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:10 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"People are not born like this."

Ahem - yes, they are. Children are remarkably, if unknowingly, inconsiderate and even cruel - grabbing toys with their little hands, squishing ants with their little fingers, poking dogs with their little sticks ...

Children have to learn empathy like they learn anything else.




Considering, though, how hands-on childcare is early on, and how early on children learn to feel empathy, it's fair to say that you actually have to do something wrong to prevent a child from learning it - barring chemical disturbances in the brain or any such physical influence.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
As widespread as drug abuse, alcoholism, and a family history of abuse?


Talkin' to me?

I'd say many of those are symptoms and causes of neglect, so yes.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"But it has a lot to do with the murder rate. It's so much easier to kill with a gun than a knife or bat. "

Hello,

I might be content in a society that recognized my right to carry a smallsword, sidesword, rapier, or dagger.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:14 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Seems reasonable... So is this behavior actually so rare in parents, in such a fundamental way that it is shaking society apart and making children violently vicious?

I mean, obviously parent-child relationships are often complex and have difficulties. Many people in my circle of friends had issues with their parents that messed them up in some way, myself included, but it didn't turn them inhuman. How wide-spread is the kind of emotional abuse that would turn children violent and dangerous?


I think neglect is probably more widespread and damaging. Most parents don't seem to give a fuck.



Most parents, really?

A fair number of parents, I could buy, but most? Isn't that a bit of a cynical assumption?

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:18 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Most parents, really?

A fair number of parents, I could buy, but most? Isn't that a bit of a cynical assumption?


Probably. Most parents care about themselves more than their kids, in my experience. They don't outright neglect them, but they come first and their kids come second. In my opinion that's on a continuum of "don't give a fuck"ism.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:18 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
As widespread as drug abuse, alcoholism, and a family history of abuse?




Yes, but those are sort of... you know, obvious reasons and not - like Frem says - held up as virtues. I was more interested in the less obvious things this implies, and the far larger segment of society that would be touched by them.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:20 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Most parents, really?

A fair number of parents, I could buy, but most? Isn't that a bit of a cynical assumption?


Probably. Most parents care about themselves more than their kids, in my experience. They don't outright neglect them, but they come first and their kids come second. In my opinion that's on a continuum of "don't give a fuck"ism.



But.. most??

And what all rates as putting children second, self first, to make the vast majority of parents qualify?

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:43 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"People are not born like this."

Ahem - yes, they are. Children are remarkably, if unknowingly, inconsiderate and even cruel - grabbing toys with their little hands, squishing ants with their little fingers, poking dogs with their little sticks ...

Children have to learn empathy like they learn anything else.


Heya Rue,

I know we've been over this ground before, but this seems a starker statement than you've given in the past. Y'know, a lot happens between birth and the point at which a child has the motor skills to squish ants and poke dogs with sticks. A lot of learning and modeling. Every child I've known who's done that stuff with any regularity had a controlling parent who was blind to certain important needs. I've known several children well, who don't do that, whose parents treat them with the respect and the wonder they deserve.

Perhaps your talking about the developmental process of becoming aware of others as separate beings--can't have empathy if you don't realize there are other feeling beings in the world. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that you're an automatic tyrant without training. It means that there is a developmental period when empathy is beyond you and then some months later it's not.

I presume you've got statistics on ant squishing and dog poking, but I can't see how any such study could rule out the possibility that this was learned behavior.

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  

Friday, March 27, 2009 1:07 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

When I was very young, I used to cook ants with a magnifying glass. Then I got a slingshot, and I started hunting lizards in my yard with pebbles.

One day, I actually HIT a lizard. It didn't die right away. It twitched. It bled. It looked awful. I felt awful.

I stopped trying to snipe lizards after that.

Some time later, I got out my magnifying glass with the intention of cooking some ants. I thought of that lizard.

I stopped cooking ants after that.

I'll still kill insects now, of course, if they infest my house. It's just not fun anymore.

I don't recall being counseled against any of my youthful activities. It was just the first realization of many in my life, based on my own experience. My parents taught me a lot of stuff, but it was me that taught me that killing oughtn't to be a pasttime.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 1:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Although a bit out of character for me, a hug for you Agentrouka, because you've understood enough already to ask the right questions.

And I fully understand you're not being snarky, but actually interested.

I will answer it here, but if you wish to start a new thread by all means do so - just be prepared for a lot of reading and make time for it, because almost all of this has been explored rather thoroughly by folks way more qualified than me, just that no one seems to want to listen cause they don't like what they're hearing.

The primary thing is getting away from what is "poisonous pedagogy" - a term coined by Katharina Rutschky and brought into sharp focus by Alice Miller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonous_pedagogy

This is where the parent, in seeking control, winds up treating their own child as an adversary or enemy to be conquered - I referred to it as "Adversarial Parenting" before getting involved in Ms Millers work cause I too saw how obvious the damage was.

The problem is that most parents have no experience or training with being parents, and thanks to a society that no longer allows time for it, wind up grasping at straws in an attempt to find anything that will work.

And then someone with a religious or financial motive directs them to the work of someone like that monster James Dobson, who's entire idea of 'parenting' involves breaking the child to your will, even if it breaks the child utterly - and it DOES NOT WORK.

Liken this to someone getting a doberman puppy, they hear dobermans are mean, so they decide to "show it who's boss" by beating the crap out of it all the time to cow it, to break it to their will...

Sooner or later, that dog WILL bite them - and then people blame the dog!
Or even suggest that the owner wasn't brutal ENOUGH!
And the cycle continues, and worsens.

And yes, we do this to kids, do a little research on what James Dobson claims is good parenting...

And worse, Gary Ezzo, of similar bent, who suggests using this model on INFANTS, a practice which has been linked to failure to thrive conditions and even death.
http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/aneyaap.htm

At it's most heinous, this path leads to the hellcamps, when the kids turn and bite, like the doberman puppy above, or resist a school social environment who's cliques and pecking order bullshit are replicated in only one other place in american society - the penal system, which as the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed, is about as humanly destructive an environment as is possible to create.

And when children face mixed messages of what their own humanity and empathy are telling them crossing up with exactly the opposite demanded of them for social success and acceptance, aberrent behavior is all but gauranteed, especially in so toxic an environment.

And then we call it a disorder and try to medicate it cause admitting the truth would be too painful, cause too much hassle, might involve admitting blame...

And if/when that doesn't work... the camps.
And kids DIE.

Humans are born with certain biological pre-dispositions, and the natural link between a parent and infant/child during the developmental stages is utterly critical to their future development, something researched in explicit detail by Dr Bruce Perry of the Child Trauma Academy.

And if that relationship is positive, no worries - but if due to following stupid advice, frustration or incompetence, that relationship turns negative.... the fuse is lit, you see ?
Now it's possible to defuse that, very much so, but the chances of doing so successfully are much greater the earlier you intervene, and just after puberty is when the childs personality begins to calcify and you run out of time - if you wait till they've already in the juvie court system, your chances are all but gone.

You're right that most folk do not set out to mistreat their kids, far, far, FAR more abuse comes from incompetence, ignorance, bad advice by folk with a financial stake in offering it, simple frustration or even well meaning but inadequate parenting, than ever came from malice.

But it ends in malice - because what's THE most common american advice to a parent when a child doesn't meet expectations ?
Hit harder, punish longer, use more control - when often it's those very things that set the relationship spiralling out of control in the first place.

And that child *will* learn to hate you, only in a child can love and hate co-exist right beside each other without conflict like that, but it's all too common, and what *HAPPENS* to these problem children, even if they've managed to stay out of trouble with the law and society, when they and their parents find each other so despicable they cannot bear each others presence ?

Why, out the door at eighteen, bang, no job, no job skills, no support of any kind from a parent who has completely neglected that part of their duty because it was, yanno, too much trouble, etc etc.

Or, and I am seeing this with at least one my relatives now - a parent who cannot let GO, who deliberately prevents a teens ventures into adulthood by forbidding them from learning to drive despite a relative who will pay for it entire, by forbidding them to have a job, gripping tighter and tighter till the child flees a home they've come to see as a prison, totally unprepared for a world that's all too ready to eat them alive.

There's a million and one ways to screw it up, and it's so hard to get it right in a society that legally and socially considers them something less than livestock - while it might not seem a great deal to the adult who just shoved away the four year old who wanted a hug cause they were "busy", it's a great deal to the child - and how often does the adult bother to explain or apologise ?

It's an oh-so-very-slippery slope, and almost no one at the bottom ever stepped on it deliberately, but they slid down all the same.

We need to make support of parents a PRIORITY, instead of stigmatising them, HONOR them, instead of penalising them.
(and let's not lie, most workplaces in the US *WILL* penalise you for it, if not outright try to be RID of you as unproductive deadweight for it!)

We need to take parenthood as seriously as the consequences of screwing it up really ARE.

Wowza, this has run on pretty long, so imma clip it here for the moment cause I got stuff needin doin, but I am quite happy to answer your questions, Agent, and help you refine them into concrete specifics as best I can - because it's very important to me.

-Frem

PS - Hey Siggy ? I wish the hell that cooper dude had been there when *I* had to deal with U of M Shock Trauma, who's attitude at the time was
"Bah, let em die, they're too poor to be profitable"

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Also.... our daughter is brain-damaged, and has at times exhibited extremely ARRGGGGHHHH!!!!! behavior: VERY attention deficit, very oppositional, irrational, autistic. And parents are... well... human... and get frustrated too.

So if you have a kid who's oppositional and just gets under your skin, the temptation is to hit them. Which breeds more opposition. Of, if your kid is attention-deficit and extremely demanding of YOUR attention, when they're (for once) happily occupying themsleves, the temptation is to ignore them. Which means they'll act up just to get your attention. Or if your kid gets "stuck" because of a sudden change and starts to slow down, the temptation is to hurry them along... which confuses them even more, and causes MORE delay.

Most kids can be raised by most parents, but SOME kids require a very... throughtful.. approach. The parents MUST be grownups, and sometimes hold their first (emotional, automatic) responses in check.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Perhaps your talking about the developmental process of becoming aware of others as separate beings--can't have empathy if you don't realize there are other feeling beings in the world. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that you're an automatic tyrant without training. It means that there is a developmental period when empathy is beyond you and then some months later it's not."

That's part of it - but the other part is that it's not automatic. One has to have the right inputs - whatever they are. (And I don't think anyone knows.)

There are studies on that kind of development, but they are just starting.

So, I thought I'd offer some information that's decades old, about much more primitive systems like the visual system.

Did you know that if animals are raised in an environment with all vertical lines for a few weeks they will never, ever be able to see a horizontal line no matter how old they get ? No matter how many times they fall down the step ?

If something that basic is subect to skewed development, how much more so the fuzziness of personality ?

Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, though apparently I did.

It's just that with 10% of the US population testing out as sociopathic (by some figures) it seems to me that empathy isn't automatic, nor is it extended universally even in those who have it. That's why a lot of people cringed when they saw the picture of the office-worker falling head-first to the pavement from the Twin-Towers, but will show disgust or contempt for the homeless dude on the sidewalk. So I see it more as a potential, not as a basic human trait.

At the same time, I don't think people are 'born bad' either. I think that having so MANY people with empathy even in this society means that there is an overall tendency to it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:35 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

It's just that with 10% of the US population testing out as sociopathic (by some figures) it seems to me that empathy isn't automatic, nor is it extended universally even in those who have it. That's why a lot of people cringed when they saw the picture of the office-worker falling head-first to the pavement from the Twin-Towers, but will show disgust or contempt for the homeless dude on the sidewalk. So I see it more as a potential, not as a basic human trait.




I'd say that the example with the homeless person isn't a very good one, since a lack of empathy for a homeless guy on the street, or walking past people seeking donations for good causes, etc.. is really a very specifically learned behavior, for many reasons.

I'd say people stopping to gawk at accident sites, enjoying pictures or video clips of people getting hurt, or ignoring very obvious signs of violence or abuse in their own neighbors (ignore - not fail to notice) are better examples for a lack of empathy that are much harder to explain.

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

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:57 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'd say people stopping to gawk at accident sites, enjoying pictures or video clips of people getting hurt, or ignoring very obvious signs of violence or abuse in their own neighbors (ignore - not fail to notice) are better examples for a lack of empathy that are much harder to explain.


And look at how successful television shows that exploit that are.

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

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:06 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Although a bit out of character for me, a hug for you Agentrouka, because you've understood enough already to ask the right questions.



Wow, that's a shock! I'm glad you took my questions in the inquisitive spirit with which they were intended. And thank you for taking the time.

Quote:


This is where the parent, in seeking control, winds up treating their own child as an adversary or enemy to be conquered - I referred to it as "Adversarial Parenting" before getting involved in Ms Millers work cause I too saw how obvious the damage was.



I see what you mean. It seems like a particularly easy trap to fall into these days, since parenting is such an isolated activity, one compartment in life that has to be fitted into everything else. Parents have to juggle so many loads that they get overwhelmed and feel vitimised by the demands of their own child, and end up fighting it like an enemy, because it's the one "thing" they can most easily access and try to change.

Ouch.

I hadn't thought of that, but it really is a widespread problem, I suspect. To change the situation of parents, you'd have to make larger changes in society and its attitude toward children and parenting.

Quote:


And when children face mixed messages of what their own humanity and empathy are telling them crossing up with exactly the opposite demanded of them for social success and acceptance, aberrent behavior is all but gauranteed, especially in so toxic an environment.



I guess it's also a case of mixed messages from parents. Control and insecurity on one hand, and affection and closeness on the other, which would make it very difficult to separate the harmful from the nourishing.


Dang, this makes me very proud of my half-sister's mother. The little one is two and a half and is growing up on a steady diet of dialog. It can be extremely exhausting to listen to them talk things over the tenth time one evening, when it would theoretically be easier to just pull parental rank, but three days later, the little one will be explaining that very reasoning back to her and do the right thing.. so it works. My sister is an extremely bright, well-behaved and articulate toddler and I attribute this to her mother's patience and respect.

Quote:


We need to make support of parents a PRIORITY, instead of stigmatising them, HONOR them, instead of penalising them.
(and let's not lie, most workplaces in the US *WILL* penalise you for it, if not outright try to be RID of you as unproductive deadweight for it!)



No kidding, and not just in the U.S.

I work at a company that's a pretty big exception, because the environment is extremely supportive of parents, flexible about work time, supportive of parental leave.. and it pays. People work hard to stay with the company and make it thrive because it's more compatible with their lives than they could get it elsewhere.

It pays to accomodate parents, more companies should do it.



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

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:14 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'd say people stopping to gawk at accident sites, enjoying pictures or video clips of people getting hurt, or ignoring very obvious signs of violence or abuse in their own neighbors (ignore - not fail to notice) are better examples for a lack of empathy that are much harder to explain.


And look at how successful television shows that exploit that are.



Not really arguing with that.

I say, while I find it questionable either way, obviously fictional violence is still a different animal from violence in real life.

But in general, yes, it's a darn disturbing thing that we celebrate and promote lack of empathy in our media. Firefly is just as guilty of it as anything.


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

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:16 AM

CITIZEN



We've not come a very long way since the Roman arena, you ask me.

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

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:20 AM

RIPWASH


I wanna chime in here.

I, personally, put my kids first in 95% of the cases we face. They are the first to get new clothes, new shoes, a haircut, whatever. I've got a couple pairs of shoes, but they're falling apart. I need new ones, but the kids needed some first. I often go months between haircuts because by the time the kids and my wife get their's done, there's no money left (as little money as it take to get a basic cut these days) for me to get mine done. We'll go shopping and I'll have something in mind I want to get for myself, but if the kids end up wanting or needing something, guess what? I put my stuff back so they can get what they want/need. I'm just saying there ARE parents out there who do give a darn about their kids. I would say the only time I'm neglectful is when I get caught up playing my silly computer games.

At any rate, I wanna chime in on the "everyone needs to learn to be a parent first" (that's not a direct quote, I know, but in genral). I would agree with that, but for the most part I just don't think it works. Yes, people having children NEED to be prepared for a very challenging time and they NEED to be aware of what they're getting themselves into. At times I certainly DO think the should be a liscensing bureau for parents

Each child is very different and very unique. What works on one child probably won't work on another. There's a reason they say that kids don't come with an instruction manual. For example, when my oldest son was very young he needed some music playing and a nightlight in order to go to sleep at night. My middle child wanted it pitch black and quiet. My youngest is a mixture of both (sometimes dark, sometime a nightlight, sometimes some music, etc.). I know that most of you probably are aware of these things and I may be reading some of these posts wrong, but we can't expect to follow a set "blueprint" for every child because each child is born very, very different. A discipline for one child won't work on another. Spanking for example. We give our kids ONE swat when needed (we don't needlessly beat them senseless I assure you) and they know it's a punishment for bad behavior. But my sister's kids? That doesn't even phase them. They think it's funny.

On another note related to this thread . . .

I will say that I'm one of the people who romanticized the Old West. It seemed the majority of people owned guns and that put them on equal footing with everyone else. If you were threatened with a gun, you at least had a fair shot at defending yourself in the same fashion as your aggressor. These days, most people are at the mercy of the one holding the gun. The criminal. And there is no way to defend oneself.

On the other hand, I think Anthony mentioned the liked the idea of carrying a sword. Would that work? I don't know. They say that swords are more "personal" because you actually have to face your opponent up close. A gun? Heck, you can be quite a ways off and still kill someone. But with a sword, you've got to have skill and face someone else who may be your match or even better, so you'd better be sure you know what you're doing before you go around threatening people with one.

Okay . . . so a lot of wide and varied views there. Sorry.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL