Question:
> There are forms, for example, of martial arts that are > *intentionally* not viscious, but only intent to tire the > attacker and not harm him, so thatr the victim can simply walk > away.
None of which are very useful in war. All you have been in this entire post is disingenuous in deleting that with which you could not deal, and being obtuse in regard to all the rest. Steve
Response:
>> There are forms, for example, of martial arts that are > *intentionally* not viscious, but only intent to tire the > attacker and not harm him, so thatr the victim can simply walk > away. >None of which are very useful in war.
However *we* weren’t talking about war. Were you? If so, you overlooked making it obvious. >All you have been in this entire >post is disingenuous in deleting that with which you could not deal, >and being obtuse in regard to all the rest.
I deleted that which was not relevant. Don’t like it? Don’t mess with usenet. "Obtuse"? Cripes, man! *I* never claimed to be a mindreader. Not even with my wife (where attempts in that area, however poor, at least yield a useful relationship). If you want to discuss sex, might I be so bold as to suggest the obvious? Go to one of the many groups where that is The Topic ™. (HINT: These groups ain’t those) — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
> >> There are forms, for example, of martial arts that are >> *intentionally* not viscious, but only intent to tire the >> attacker and not harm him, so thatr the victim can simply walk >> away. >None of which are very useful in war. > However *we* weren’t talking about war. Were you?
YOU seem to have been trying to do so, but you don’t seem to be able to stay on topic, or you try to deny it as it suits you to be an asshole. > If so, you overlooked making it obvious.
YOU overlooked telling anyone (conveniently) that you desired to change the topic, and in fact you did NOT!! >All you have been in this entire >post is disingenuous in deleting that with which you could not deal, >and being obtuse in regard to all the rest. > I deleted that which was not relevant. > Don’t like it? Don’t mess with usenet.
I reported it to history here. The Net never forgets you’re an asshole. > "Obtuse"? Cripes, man! *I* never claimed to be a mindreader. > Not even with my wife (where attempts in that area, however poor, > at least yield a useful relationship). > If you want to discuss sex, might I be so bold as to suggest the > obvious? Go to one of the many groups where that is The Topic > ™. > (HINT: These groups ain’t those)
Wrong! It is a topic of parenting. And this is where you oppressive buttfucks must be stopped! Steve
Response:
>> However *we* weren’t talking about war. Were you? >YOU seem to have been trying to do so, but you don’t seem to be able to >stay on topic, or you try to deny it as it suits you to be an asshole.
"On-topic" …. let’s see …. looking toward the top of my screen, I see the subject line saying "Re: FBI report to Schools on School Violence". Yes, we all remember where this came from, now! It began talking about kids being violent in skools. I remember coming in and addressing this with alternatives to what simply and clearly aren’t working. Didja forget or didja just miss that? > If so, you overlooked making it obvious. >YOU overlooked telling anyone (conveniently) that you desired to change >the topic, and in fact you did NOT!!
… did not *what*? Did not change the topic or did not tell people? See, I’m not so sure that I changed the topic (aside from standard topic drift) so that suggests that there would have been no need to tell anybody of a change. > I deleted that which was not relevant. > Don’t like it? Don’t mess with usenet. >I reported it to history here.
<BLINK> I’m actually trying to imagine that you intended for this to have some meaning or significance. Who or what is this "history" to which you "reported it"? Does this "history" care? Does it have a position of authority which should cause anybody to be concerned? Does it cost money to "report" things to "history"? So many questions, so little time. >The Net never forgets you’re an asshole.
Ah, good! I’m glad to see that you have not lost your 2 page thesaurus. But that projection does seem to be a bit of a danger. If you continue to leave it hanging out like that, someone will come along and help you out by zipping up, causing you pain like was depicted in "All About Mary". > "Obtuse"? Cripes, man! *I* never claimed to be a mindreader. > Not even with my wife (where attempts in that area, however poor, > at least yield a useful relationship). > If you want to discuss sex, might I be so bold as to suggest the > obvious? Go to one of the many groups where that is The Topic > ™. > (HINT: These groups ain’t those) >Wrong! It is a topic of parenting. And this is where you oppressive >buttfucks must be stopped!
There ya go! Feel all better, now? Have that outta yer system? Feel like joining *in* conversations, now, or do you still prefer to be ignored? — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Yes, but still there is an element that would not be there if the kid’s > >sexual needs were being satisfied. The supposed male competitive urges > >go away when sexual satisfaction is available. > <Boggle!> > Steve! Can ya put the testosterone on hold for just a bit and > read what it was that I wrote and respond to *it*? > This was about how we (DunGais ™) can develop musculature, > then feel a need to *use* it and how that can turn violent. >You’re missing the deeper level.
Last time (then I’ll simply snip this part): This is not about penetration, so forget about yer concept of "deeper level". > Then I described how the same developed musculature in later life > might not have the same effect at all and how that musculature is > simply looked at as simply a strange anomoly. >Muscularity doesn’t cause cruelty. Guys who get sex close at hand simply >don’t need to feel the resentments against the society which cause them >to think of cruelty.
I suggest that you either go back and re-read what I wrote to begin with or drop this line, because you are *way* off-track in your responses. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >If you see the two sides as equals it does become a question how > >violence would ever do any good, but if you see the sides as > >significantly different then their purposes become important, and how > >those purposes are implmented are not nearly as important. This conflict > >is NOT symmetrical ethically! Violence can only be confronted with > >violence, the assailant makes that necessary. But they started it, it > >was not some mutual bar brawl just to be fighting where nobody started > >it and the sides are ethically identical. > You are trying to turn it into a moral question. It is more than > that. It is a question of the survival of the species. > More violence will simply put an end to the species, eventually. > That is the ultimate result if we don’t learn to do something > different. >Well, a certain TYPE of violent tool could end us all, but the >mechanisms of microviolence are quite intact and non-self-threatening!
So you continue to claim without proof … except in your own mind. I, OTOH, offer similar proof, PLUS the work of a lot of folks over a lot of years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >I agree. But first we must survive and guarantee our freedoms, and THEN > >and ONLY THEN can we afford to be generous to othe enemies of love and > >freedom!! > I guess that, first, we have to define "freedom" in a manner that > everybody could agree with. This will be *most* difficult, given > our present, confused state of culture where there are some who > feel that a parent controlling kids and limiting their freedom is > a Good Thing ™. > I know it is a big step, one that many will simply not be able to > take unless they can actually see it work; but using love instead > of violence is a requirement of getting past the violence. Using > violence to "beat" violence will only perpetuate violence. >Love/freedom and violence are not opposites.
Nobody suggested that they were. I only suggested that we have to *define* "freedom", something that I notice that you failed to even attempt at any level … making further discussion about it difficult. > That is so obvious (heck, just look at the words!) that I am > amazed that so many miss it. >You flatter yourself unduly for a mere "table arrangement" that I >changed totally.
What you *did* was avoid going into a foundation for discussion and went off onto a rant, instead. >You saw violence as a motive,
<Blink> Where? Go ‘heaed, post where I said that. >and it is NOT a motive. Motives, are, >variously, Love/Freedom vs greed, cruelty, slavery. Violence can be used >in the service of either set.
Actually, when one looks at the evidence (didja miss it?), violence is the *result* of lack of love. Can ya stay on-topic, here? > OK, your homework assignment will be to come up with 10 different > scenarios that such people could use to effectively prevent the > limitation or elimination of their freedoms that do not involve > violence. > You *should* be able to do this if you are not limited in your > thinking. > (OK, how about 5?) >You do this and let me watch.
My position is (for those slow of reading comprehension) that *you* are unable to because of limited thinking. Your lack of even the most basic attempts suggests that I am correct. Now, can we do anything about this? > >Coons simply don’t have enough cortex to love. > Define "love", then show how the relative cortex volume controls > it. >Love requires a self-awareness.
>It is a reflective realization of the >self and others existing here and now. Without that nothing, sine qua >non. Lower animals do not exhibit the property of yielding freedom to >each other, the main feature of love.
You are off to a poor beginning, here. You neither defined love nor showed any cause and effect between relative cortex volumes and the capacity for love. Come on. I’m *struggling* to maintain an actual conversation, here. > See, that is a pretty lame and invalid response that I hear from > folks who who are so afraid of anthrpomorphizing (programmed?) > that they limit their perceptions and thinking so as not to be > "accused" of it. >Your rationale here is popular but flawed. There are excellent reasons >to understand that lower animals are not capable of love as we know it.
Just The Word Of Steve ™? Come on, you can do better. You *must* do better or you will be talking only to yourself, again. > I have found them only to be viscious when they need to in order > to save or perpetuate their lives. Their visciousness is, much > like the Native American groups that I discussed earlier, mostly > for show. This is true of *most* species. >All self-defense is vicious,
You really should get out more. Do you recognize that the entire world is not covered by fog 168 days per year like tends to be the case in Santa Cruz? There are forms, for example, of martial arts that are *intentionally* not viscious, but only intent to tire the attacker and not harm him, so thatr the victim can simply walk away. >this isn’t the same as human cruelty. >They are fully capable of defending their lives, but generosity is >not a coon virtue!
I will counter that with 3 points. Sorry for any redundancy. They are 1) Environment 2) Environment and, in hopes that I don’t overlook it: 3) Environment. > >You’d better stay away from them too, or you’ll get a case of > >roundoworm!! > Aw, geeze! You buy into the crap on the local nuze? > Didja remember *how* that ONE kid got that case? He got it by > playing with and eating their feces. > Can you say "poor parental supervision"? >Sure, but I wouldn’t like to test how contagious it is. This was found >in over a third of them!! It’s a deadly disease.
This is as bad as the simpering nuze-casters who made the "call to arms" in the first place. You don’t *know* how contagious it is, so your first (and only, so far) reaction is "LOOK OUT! THYE SKY IS FALLING!!!!" How contagious is is can be readily known. Now I have to wonder why an otherwise thinking person would be this sort of an alarmist. See, I have been dealing with them on a regular (daily) for at least the past 16 years, here alone. Never got it. In fact, I have never *seen* a case, have you? But, then, *I* tend not to eat their feces. Glen (… how ’bout you?) Appleby — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I was refering only to the thing that some guys go through where >> they simply *notice* their muscular development and kinda marvel >> at it. >> I know this to be true because (as I have said before), mine >> occured much later in life (I was a skinney kid with no upper >> body development to speak of and mine developed while I was >> working on the roads, here). I simply marveled at it because it >> was something that I never had, before. It had nothing to do >> with machismo. It was just like "Whoa! What’s *this*?" >Yes, but still there is an element that would not be there if the kid’s >sexual needs were being satisfied. The supposed male competitive urges >go away when sexual satisfaction is available. > <Boggle!> > Steve! Can ya put the testosterone on hold for just a bit and > read what it was that I wrote and respond to *it*? > This was about how we (DunGais ™) can develop musculature, > then feel a need to *use* it and how that can turn violent.
You’re missing the deeper level. I’m amazed that you think this is the cause of anything! It’s a bit like thinking rainbows cause rain. > Then I described how the same developed musculature in later life > might not have the same effect at all and how that musculature is > simply looked at as simply a strange anomoly.
Muscularity doesn’t cause cruelty. Guys who get sex close at hand simply don’t need to feel the resentments against the society which cause them to think of cruelty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Well, the speach resulting from a committee would not have the >> same impact, I would imagine. A camel was a horse designed by a >> committee. >But they work fine? > However, neither Western nor English saddles will fit them > properly. >> <snicker> I remember Mac, the old woman that we were taking care >> of. When things turned to crap, she would often screech (she was >> almost deaf) "You have to take what you get and *like* it." >> I kinda miss her … yeah, even cleaning her up after an >> accident. >Having worked in hopsitals and cleaned shit with one hand while drinking >coffer with the other, I can still pass on that. > When she had her accidents and I was "assigned" cleanup duties, I > would attempt to leave her any dignity possible. What I would do > is take her into the bathroom and stand there with a washcloth, > cleaning it and handing it to her to clean herself with. > She couldn’t really feel when she had to go or (worse yet) when > she was done. > This led to the following conversation when Kathy did cleanup: > Kathy would clean Mac up with a washcloth. > Mac: Yeah. > ("Yeah" was her standard answer to anything that she couldn’t > hear properly, didn’t want to answer or was not prepared to > answer) > Kathy started to clean her up. > Mac wasn’t quite finished, yet and kinda deposited a "gift" on > Kathy’s hand as Kathy was cleaning her up. > Kathy: SHIT!!!! > Now, my experiences were a bit different. > I remember one time where I was helping Mac clean up. I would > clean the washcloth and hand it back to her. She would clean and > hand me the washcloth. > This was going on for some time and the washcloth kept coming out > dirty. > Mac became a bit confused that it was taking so long and said "Is > there no *end* to it?" >> If we try to stop violence with more violence, we are simply >> going to perpetuate the violence. It models violence for those >> who follow. It says, "If you have a problem, here is a way to >> resolve it and, see? It works." >If you see the two sides as equals it does become a question how >violence would ever do any good, but if you see the sides as >significantly different then their purposes become important, and how >those purposes are implmented are not nearly as important. This conflict >is NOT symmetrical ethically! Violence can only be confronted with >violence, the assailant makes that necessary. But they started it, it >was not some mutual bar brawl just to be fighting where nobody started >it and the sides are ethically identical. > You are trying to turn it into a moral question. It is more than > that. It is a question of the survival of the species. > More violence will simply put an end to the species, eventually. > That is the ultimate result if we don’t learn to do something > different.
Well, a certain TYPE of violent tool could end us all, but the mechanisms of microviolence are quite intact and non-self-threatening! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Yes, it may well resolve some symptoms of problems, but it is not >> an effective long-term solution because it does not address the >> underlying causes. >> Love, OTOH, does. >I agree. But first we must survive and guarantee our freedoms, and THEN >and ONLY THEN can we afford to be generous to othe enemies of love and >freedom!! > I guess that, first, we have to define "freedom" in a manner that > everybody could agree with. This will be *most* difficult, given > our present, confused state of culture where there are some who > feel that a parent controlling kids and limiting their freedom is > a Good Thing ™. > I know it is a big step, one that many will simply not be able to > take unless they can actually see it work; but using love instead > of violence is a requirement of getting past the violence. Using > violence to "beat" violence will only perpetuate violence.
Love/freedom and violence are not opposites. Violence can be used in service to Love/Freedom, but Love/Freedom can go undefended and be lost or ignored. Even Gahndi said that non-violence would not have worked against the Nazi’s, and that it worked against the British only because they were basically guilty and fair. It is NOT a universal tactic! Using violence to defeat slavery, cruelty and greed is the proper use of violence. There are improper uses, such as in service to greed, cruelty, and slavery. > That is so obvious (heck, just look at the words!) that I am > amazed that so many miss it.
You flatter yourself unduly for a mere "table arrangement" that I changed totally. You were merely doing feng shue with verbiage. You saw violence as a motive, and it is NOT a motive. Motives, are, variously, Love/Freedom vs greed, cruelty, slavery. Violence can be used in the service of either set. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >I think there is some biochemical disorders in humans which make some >> >few people impossible to tolerate in tirbal life, and so these people >> >were ejected, likely at puberty when they became much too abusive, and >> >they usually died without modern weaponry or the support of the tribe. >> This is true in *some* cultures. (Not that it is inherent, but >> the way that you describe some cultures dealing with it) >> I refer, again (OK, and again and again and …) to "The >> Continuum Concept". Jean Liedloff gives at least 2 examples of >> how the Yaquana deal with aborant behavior. >> In one instance, one of the group decided to go off to The Big >> City ™. Some years later, he came back, but he was changed by >> the experience. He was not interested in building his house, >> planting his garden or doing much of anything else that the >> people normally did to maintain themselves. >> The rest of the group just did it for him — without the >> slightest hint of anger or disgust that they had to do his "work" >> (they don’t even have a word for "work" in their native >> language). They recognized that, when he felt comfortable that >> he was accepted as a mamber of the group, he would go back to >> doing those things that he needed to do, just like everybody >> else. >> And they were correct. >> Another instance involved one member who had experienced >> something traumatic. He kinda "went off", doing strange things >> like going off to some local hilltop and yelling at … nothing. >> He was simply accepted. >> He, too, came around, because he was accepted and his "strange" >> behavior was not questioned or degraded. >> Now, where creulity came from? >What these two manifested was not cruelty. They instead manifested harm >from cruelty having been visited upon them. The reaction of their tribe >was loving and supportive. > When someone experiences cruelty, the natural reaction (in the > absence of love) is to perpetuate the cruelty on others. > Had these two happened in *our* culture, the second woulda gone > "postal" and the first woulda been considered a "welfare mooch". >But what about when some guy shows up and kidnaps your people and chains >them and heads for the ship, or somebody comes in and beats you for >things you see as normal and enslaves you?? You have to harm him or >capitulate because those are his terms. > Sorry that you see such limited choices in those situations. > This is part of the problem. > OK, your homework assignment will be to come up with 10 different > scenarios that such people could use to effectively prevent the > limitation or elimination of their freedoms that do not involve > violence. > You *should* be able to do this if you are not limited in your > thinking. > (OK, how about 5?)
You do this and let me watch. I don’t think you can. The best minds of European Jewish culture had zero ability to deal with Nazi-ism. They were ignored and shipped off in cattle cars. They were shot … read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was refering only to the thing that some guys go through where > they simply *notice* their muscular development and kinda marvel > at it. > I know this to be true because (as I have said before), mine > occured much later in life (I was a skinney kid with no upper > body development to speak of and mine developed while I was > working on the roads, here). I simply marveled at it because it > was something that I never had, before. It had nothing to do > with machismo. It was just like "Whoa! What’s *this*?" >Yes, but still there is an element that would not be there if the kid’s >sexual needs were being satisfied. The supposed male competitive urges >go away when sexual satisfaction is available.
<Boggle!> Steve! Can ya put the testosterone on hold for just a bit and read what it was that I wrote and respond to *it*? This was about how we (DunGais ™) can develop musculature, then feel a need to *use* it and how that can turn violent. Then I described how the same developed musculature in later life might not have the same effect at all and how that musculature is simply looked at as simply a strange anomoly. > Well, the speach resulting from a committee would not have the > same impact, I would imagine. A camel was a horse designed by a > committee. >But they work fine?
However, neither Western nor English saddles will fit them properly. > <snicker> I remember Mac, the old woman that we were taking care > of. When things turned to crap, she would often screech (she was > almost deaf) "You have to take what you get and *like* it." > I kinda miss her … yeah, even cleaning her up after an > accident. >Having worked in hopsitals and cleaned shit with one hand while drinking >coffer with the other, I can still pass on that.
When she had her accidents and I was "assigned" cleanup duties, I would attempt to leave her any dignity possible. What I would do is take her into the bathroom and stand there with a washcloth, cleaning it and handing it to her to clean herself with. She couldn’t really feel when she had to go or (worse yet) when she was done. This led to the following conversation when Kathy did cleanup: Kathy would clean Mac up with a washcloth. Mac: Yeah. ("Yeah" was her standard answer to anything that she couldn’t hear properly, didn’t want to answer or was not prepared to answer) Kathy started to clean her up. Mac wasn’t quite finished, yet and kinda deposited a "gift" on Kathy’s hand as Kathy was cleaning her up. Kathy: SHIT!!!! Now, my experiences were a bit different. I remember one time where I was helping Mac clean up. I would clean the washcloth and hand it back to her. She would clean and hand me the washcloth. This was going on for some time and the washcloth kept coming out dirty. Mac became a bit confused that it was taking so long and said "Is there no *end* to it?" > If we try to stop violence with more violence, we are simply > going to perpetuate the violence. It models violence for those > who follow. It says, "If you have a problem, here is a way to > resolve it and, see? It works." >If you see the two sides as equals it does become a question how >violence would ever do any good, but if you see the sides as >significantly different then their purposes become important, and how >those purposes are implmented are not nearly as important. This conflict >is NOT symmetrical ethically! Violence can only be confronted with >violence, the assailant makes that necessary. But they started it, it >was not some mutual bar brawl just to be fighting where nobody started >it and the sides are ethically identical.
You are trying to turn it into a moral question. It is more than that. It is a question of the survival of the species. More violence will simply put an end to the species, eventually. That is the ultimate result if we don’t learn to do something different. > Yes, it may well resolve some symptoms of problems, but it is not > an effective long-term solution because it does not address the > underlying causes. > Love, OTOH, does. >I agree. But first we must survive and guarantee our freedoms, and THEN >and ONLY THEN can we afford to be generous to othe enemies of love and >freedom!!
I guess that, first, we have to define "freedom" in a manner that everybody could agree with. This will be *most* difficult, given our present, confused state of culture where there are some who feel that a parent controlling kids and limiting their freedom is a Good Thing ™. I know it is a big step, one that many will simply not be able to take unless they can actually see it work; but using love instead of violence is a requirement of getting past the violence. Using violence to "beat" violence will only perpetuate violence. That is so obvious (heck, just look at the words!) that I am amazed that so many miss it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >I think there is some biochemical disorders in humans which make some > >few people impossible to tolerate in tirbal life, and so these people > >were ejected, likely at puberty when they became much too abusive, and > >they usually died without modern weaponry or the support of the tribe. > This is true in *some* cultures. (Not that it is inherent, but > the way that you describe some cultures dealing with it) > I refer, again (OK, and again and again and …) to "The > Continuum Concept". Jean Liedloff gives at least 2 examples of > how the Yaquana deal with aborant behavior. > In one instance, one of the group decided to go off to The Big > City ™. Some years later, he came back, but he was changed by > the experience. He was not interested in building his house, > planting his garden or doing much of anything else that the > people normally did to maintain themselves. > The rest of the group just did it for him — without the > slightest hint of anger or disgust that they had to do his "work" > (they don’t even have a word for "work" in their native > language). They recognized that, when he felt comfortable that > he was accepted as a mamber of the group, he would go back to > doing those things that he needed to do, just like everybody > else. > And they were correct. > Another instance involved one member who had experienced > something traumatic. He kinda "went off", doing strange things > like going off to some local hilltop and yelling at … nothing. > He was simply accepted. > He, too, came around, because he was accepted and his "strange" > behavior was not questioned or degraded. > Now, where creulity came from? >What these two manifested was not cruelty. They instead manifested harm >from cruelty having been visited upon them. The reaction of their tribe >was loving and supportive.
When someone experiences cruelty, the natural reaction (in the absence of love) is to perpetuate the cruelty on others. Had these two happened in *our* culture, the second woulda gone "postal" and the first woulda been considered a "welfare mooch". >But what about when some guy shows up and kidnaps your people and chains >them and heads for the ship, or somebody comes in and beats you for >things you see as normal and enslaves you?? You have to harm him or >capitulate because those are his terms.
Sorry that you see such limited choices in those situations. This is part of the problem. OK, your homework assignment will be to come up with 10 different scenarios that such people could use to effectively prevent the limitation or elimination of their freedoms that do not involve violence. You *should* be able to do this if you are not limited in your thinking. (OK, how about 5?) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> One example that cdomes to mind involves our local raccoons. > I hand-feed the local ‘coon families. > One of the first was run by a mother who had a catarac in one > eye. This put her at something of a disadvantage. > When the raccoon babies are old enough to go out on their own, > the mother will tend to snarl when they try to follow her on her > nightly rounds to gather and eat food. She tries to let them > know that they should not be with her anymore. > It is usually nothing more than a simple warning snarl, used > often enough that the kids get the point and just move on. > But at first, the kids are persistant. They may even snarl back > to prove that they are strong enough to hang. > So the mother may have to up the ante a tad and swipe at the kids > to show that she really means it. > The kids will try to respond in kind. (Modeling) > Most of the time, when dealing with a healthy mother, it is a > short and bloodless "fight". > That this mother had a disability, though, gave her kids the idea > that they might win (apparently I am considered to be something > of a prize in our local raccoon community. They have their > sights set *so* low). Some of these "coming of age" battles are > the most vicious that I have ever seen between raccoons. She > came out pretty well shredded, I have seen her break a leg of one > of her kids and she has killed some. > Ultimately she sucumed to a cold of some sort. > I was *almost* pleased that this happened, because now I can > hand-feed the babies, again, without being concerned about making > it more difficult for the mother to push the outta the nest when > the time comes. > But I do rather miss her, too. > As humans, we have a bit of an advantage over that mother > raccoon. > We have the ability to ask for help from others. We have > compassion and can work together. We also have a broader range > of behaviors from which to learn. > IOW, we
… read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they >> >> can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents >> >> sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front >> >> of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions >> >> his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and >> >> nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS >> >> TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!! >> >If his sister was free to tell him he’s sexy and jump his bones as soon >> OK, go take a cold shower, Steve. That wasn’t about sex. It was >> about the girl having to take a leak. >And here I thought it was about violence and the reasons behind >machismo. > Now, see, if you were to get your sexual needs cared for, you > wouldn’t have this fixation whyere you see everything as being > related to sex. > (I know. Unkind. I apologize for that. It was intended only > for humor)
I might even believe that if it wasn’t that the need simply comes right back no matter how much you satify it. I’d never fault someone for sexual desire, only for denyiong it. > I was refering only to the thing that some guys go through where > they simply *notice* their muscular development and kinda marvel > at it. > I know this to be true because (as I have said before), mine > occured much later in life (I was a skinney kid with no upper > body development to speak of and mine developed while I was > working on the roads, here). I simply marveled at it because it > was something that I never had, before. It had nothing to do > with machismo. It was just like "Whoa! What’s *this*?"
Yes, but still there is an element that would not be there if the kid’s sexual needs were being satisfied. The supposed male competitive urges go away when sexual satisfaction is available. >> And many of them [Native Americans] were able to retain the resulting >> amazement and disbelief that us honkeys were able to *do* this sort of thing, >> even generations later, and even after all that we had done to >> try to destroy their cultures. >What you mean WE, white man?? > Actually, I have a notable amount of NA blood running in my veins > as well. Sometimes I note it and sometimes I come from the other > side.
I’m between 1/16th and 1/8th, we had some half breeds a ways back, and my gt-gt-grandma was full blood Muskwakie. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I just saw the apology, given by the head of the US Bureau of >> Indian Affairs, to all of the American Indians, on the nuse the >> night before last. I was alone when I saw it, thankfully, >> because I actually jumped up and applauded what he said. >> Of course, it didn’t have *quite* the power that it should have >> had because this man is also of American Indian ancestory. >> I was very pleased to see it, in any case. >Me too, but you’re right, it should have been a shame-faced committee of >honkeys. > Well, the speach resulting from a committee would not have the > same impact, I would imagine. A camel was a horse designed by a > committee.
But they work fine? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> It will be interesting to see if he is retained in that position, >> now. >> Of course, with a new administration coming in, any number of >> reasons for his departure could be made. >Lame-duck-ism?? > Since it was given pretty close to the end of an administration, > that thought clearly crossed my mind. > Whatever allowed it, I was happy to hear it, though. Sometimes > we have to simply appreciate the little things that we get. > <snicker> I remember Mac, the old woman that we were taking care > of. When things turned to crap, she would often screech (she was > almost deaf) "You have to take what you get and *like* it." > I kinda miss her … yeah, even cleaning her up after an > accident.
Having worked in hopsitals and cleaned shit with one hand while drinking coffer with the other, I can still pass on that. >> >At some point a blend of love and violence to defend it must arise, or >> >all the wonderful love will be is another defenseless plum to be plucked >> >by the cruel. The power to say what is right and make it stick must be >> >undertaken, or the cruel abusers will continue to hold the monopoly on >> >the power to say what is right! >> This assumes that cruelty will always have to exist. >No, it acknowledges that it does and speaks to how to stop it. > If we try to stop violence with more violence, we are simply > going to perpetuate the violence. It models violence for those > who follow. It says, "If you have a problem, here is a way to > resolve it and, see? It works."
If you see the two sides as equals it does become a question how violence would ever do any good, but if you see the sides as significantly different then their purposes become important, and how those purposes are implmented are not nearly as important. This conflict is NOT symmetrical ethically! Violence can only be confronted with violence, the assailant makes that necessary. But they started it, it was not some mutual bar brawl just to be fighting where nobody started it and the sides are ethically identical. > Yes, it may well resolve some symptoms of problems, but it is not > an effective long-term solution because it does not address the > underlying causes. > Love, OTOH, does.
I agree. But first we must survive and guarantee our freedoms, and THEN and ONLY THEN can we afford to be generous to othe enemies of love and freedom!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> If all of Prescott’s work (and others) is correct, cruelty >> doesn’t just happen. It is caused. As I have been saying for so >> long, we create our own monsters. We don’t *have* to and I am >> *pretty* sure that we don’t *want* to. It is just that too many >> people don’t understand, yet. >> I hope to do something to work toward that understanding. >I agree that it is caused, but where is then the first cause of it? > You want me to remember way back to my childhood, when time > began? >Was it propagated right along with our evolution from lower animals, >and then why do some animals seem to get along so well? When did the >first parent fuck up and decide to beat his kids? Or was it first a >result of happenstance, of accident, of mistaken identity or mistaken >happening which was inadvertantly taken as offense? > If this were true (that cruelty is inherent in the species), then > all cultures would exhibit cruelty. This just isn’t the case. >I think there is some biochemical disorders in humans which make some >few people impossible to tolerate in tirbal life, and so these people >were ejected, likely at puberty when they became much too abusive, and >they usually died without modern weaponry or the support of the tribe. > This is true in *some* cultures. (Not that it is inherent, but > the way that you describe some cultures dealing with it) > I refer, again (OK, and again and again and …) to "The > Continuum Concept". Jean Liedloff gives at least 2 examples of > how the Yaquana deal with aborant behavior. > In one instance, one of the group decided to go off to The Big > City ™. Some years later, he came back, but he was changed by > the experience. He was not interested in building his house, > planting his garden or doing much of anything else that the > people normally did to maintain themselves. > The rest of the group just did it for him — without the > slightest hint of anger or disgust that they had to do his "work" > (they don’t even have a word for "work" in their native > language). They recognized that, when he felt comfortable that > he was accepted as a mamber of the group, he would go back to > doing those things that he needed to do, just like everybody > else. > And they were correct. > Another instance involved one member who had experienced > something traumatic. He kinda "went off", doing strange things > like going off to some local hilltop and yelling at … nothing. > He was simply accepted. > He, too, came around, because he was accepted and his "strange" > behavior was not questioned or degraded. > Now, where creulity came from?
What these two manifested was not cruelty. They instead manifested harm from cruelty having been visited upon them. The reaction of their tribe was loving and supportive. But what about when some guy shows up and kidnaps your people and chains them and heads for the ship, or somebody comes in and beats you for things you see as normal and enslaves you?? You have to harm him or capitulate because those are his terms. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> One example that cdomes to mind involves our local raccoons. > I hand-feed the local ‘coon families. > One of the first was run by a mother who had a catarac in one > eye. This put her at something of a disadvantage. > When the raccoon babies are old enough to go out on their own, > the mother will tend to snarl when they try to follow her on her > nightly rounds to gather and eat food. She tries to let them > know that they should not be with her anymore. > It is usually nothing more than a simple warning snarl, used > often enough that the kids get the point and just move
… read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they > >> can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents > >> sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front > >> of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions > >> his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and > >> nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS > >> TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!! > >If his sister was free to tell him he’s sexy and jump his bones as soon > OK, go take a cold shower, Steve. That wasn’t about sex. It was > about the girl having to take a leak. >And here I thought it was about violence and the reasons behind >machismo.
Now, see, if you were to get your sexual needs cared for, you wouldn’t have this fixation whyere you see everything as being related to sex. (I know. Unkind. I apologize for that. It was intended only for humor) I was refering only to the thing that some guys go through where they simply *notice* their muscular development and kinda marvel at it. I know this to be true because (as I have said before), mine occured much later in life (I was a skinney kid with no upper body development to speak of and mine developed while I was working on the roads, here). I simply marveled at it because it was something that I never had, before. It had nothing to do with machismo. It was just like "Whoa! What’s *this*?" > And many of them [Native Americans] were able to retain the resulting > amazement and disbelief that us honkeys were able to *do* this sort of thing, > even generations later, and even after all that we had done to > try to destroy their cultures. >What you mean WE, white man??
Actually, I have a notable amount of NA blood running in my veins as well. Sometimes I note it and sometimes I come from the other side. > I just saw the apology, given by the head of the US Bureau of > Indian Affairs, to all of the American Indians, on the nuse the > night before last. I was alone when I saw it, thankfully, > because I actually jumped up and applauded what he said. > Of course, it didn’t have *quite* the power that it should have > had because this man is also of American Indian ancestory. > I was very pleased to see it, in any case. >Me too, but you’re right, it should have been a shame-faced committee of >honkeys.
Well, the speach resulting from a committee would not have the same impact, I would imagine. A camel was a horse designed by a committee. > It will be interesting to see if he is retained in that position, > now. > Of course, with a new administration coming in, any number of > reasons for his departure could be made. >Lame-duck-ism??
Since it was given pretty close to the end of an administration, that thought clearly crossed my mind. Whatever allowed it, I was happy to hear it, though. Sometimes we have to simply appreciate the little things that we get. <snicker> I remember Mac, the old woman that we were taking care of. When things turned to crap, she would often screech (she was almost deaf) "You have to take what you get and *like* it." I kinda miss her … yeah, even cleaning her up after an accident. > >At some point a blend of love and violence to defend it must arise, or > >all the wonderful love will be is another defenseless plum to be plucked > >by the cruel. The power to say what is right and make it stick must be > >undertaken, or the cruel abusers will continue to hold the monopoly on > >the power to say what is right! > This assumes that cruelty will always have to exist. >No, it acknowledges that it does and speaks to how to stop it.
If we try to stop violence with more violence, we are simply going to perpetuate the violence. It models violence for those who follow. It says, "If you have a problem, here is a way to resolve it and, see? It works." Yes, it may well resolve some symptoms of problems, but it is not an effective long-term solution because it does not address the underlying causes. Love, OTOH, does. > If all of Prescott’s work (and others) is correct, cruelty > doesn’t just happen. It is caused. As I have been saying for so > long, we create our own monsters. We don’t *have* to and I am > *pretty* sure that we don’t *want* to. It is just that too many > people don’t understand, yet. > I hope to do something to work toward that understanding. >I agree that it is caused, but where is then the first cause of it?
You want me to remember way back to my childhood, when time began? >Was it propagated right along with our evolution from lower animals, >and then why do some animals seem to get along so well? When did the >first parent fuck up and decide to beat his kids? Or was it first a >result of happenstance, of accident, of mistaken identity or mistaken >happening which was inadvertantly taken as offense?
If this were true (that cruelty is inherent in the species), then all cultures would exhibit cruelty. This just isn’t the case. >I think there is some biochemical disorders in humans which make some >few people impossible to tolerate in tirbal life, and so these people >were ejected, likely at puberty when they became much too abusive, and >they usually died without modern weaponry or the support of the tribe.
This is true in *some* cultures. (Not that it is inherent, but the way that you describe some cultures dealing with it) I refer, again (OK, and again and again and …) to "The Continuum Concept". Jean Liedloff gives at least 2 examples of how the Yaquana deal with aborant behavior. In one instance, one of the group decided to go off to The Big City ™. Some years later, he came back, but he was changed by the experience. He was not interested in building his house, planting his garden or doing much of anything else that the people normally did to maintain themselves. The rest of the group just did it for him — without the slightest hint of anger or disgust that they had to do his "work" (they don’t even have a word for "work" in their native language). They recognized that, when he felt comfortable that he was accepted as a mamber of the group, he would go back to doing those things that he needed to do, just like everybody else. And they were correct. Another instance involved one member who had experienced something traumatic. He kinda "went off", doing strange things like going off to some local hilltop and yelling at … nothing. He was simply accepted. He, too, came around, because he was accepted and his "strange" behavior was not questioned or degraded. Now, where creulity came from? One example that cdomes to mind involves our local raccoons. I hand-feed the local ‘coon families. One of the first was run by a mother who had a catarac in one eye. This put her at something of a disadvantage. When the raccoon babies are old enough to go out on their own, the mother will tend to snarl when they try to follow her on her nightly rounds to gather and eat food. She tries to let them know that they should not be with her anymore. It is usually nothing more than a simple warning snarl, used often enough that the kids get the point and just move on. But at first, the kids are persistant. They may even snarl back to prove that they are strong enough to hang. So the mother may have to up the ante a tad and swipe at the kids to show that she really means it. The kids will try to respond in kind. (Modeling) Most of the time, when dealing with a healthy mother, it is a short and bloodless "fight". That this mother had a disability, though, gave her kids the idea that they might win (apparently I am considered to be something of a prize in our local raccoon community. They have their sights set *so* low). Some of these "coming of age" battles are the most vicious that I have ever seen between raccoons. She came out pretty well shredded, I have seen her break a leg of one of her kids and she has killed some. Ultimately she sucumed to a cold of some sort. I was *almost* pleased that this happened, because now I can hand-feed the babies, again, without being concerned about making it more difficult for the mother to push the outta the nest when the time comes. But I do rather miss her, too. As humans, we have a bit of an advantage over that mother raccoon. We have the ability to ask for help from others. We have compassion and can work together. We also have a broader range of behaviors from which to learn. IOW, we aren’t stuck only with what was modeled for us by our parents because we can learn from others as well. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
>> I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they > can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents > sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front > of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions > his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and > nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS > TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!! >If his sister was free to tell him he’s sexy and jump his bones as soon
OK, go take a cold shower, Steve. That wasn’t about sex. It was about the girl having to take a leak. > Interestintgly, many of the Native American groups that have a > reputation for violence, we not really violent. It was, for > example, often thought of as very brave to simply *touch* one’s > opponent. In those groups, the "wars" were nothing more than > choreographed "dances" of bravery. >They were totally amazed by thw white man’s unbelievable cruelty and >viciousness. They were trying to "count coup" with coup sticks on the >enemy to prove their bravery, while the whites were shooting them down.
And many of them were able to retain the resulting amazement and disbelief that us honkeys were able to *do* this sort of thing, even generations later, and even after all that we had done to try to destroy their cultures. I just saw the apology, given by the head of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, to all of the American Indians, on the nuse the night before last. I was alone when I saw it, thankfully, because I actually jumped up and applauded what he said. Of course, it didn’t have *quite* the power that it should have had because this man is also of American Indian ancestory. I was very pleased to see it, in any case. It will be interesting to see if he is retained in that position, now. Of course, with a new administration coming in, any number of reasons for his departure could be made. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But why would we *need* to be violent? (I’m not talking about > today, but ultimately) > We already know that we can turn out the meanest motha phakers > that history has ever seen within a generation. A tad less mean > in less time if we had to. > Now, unless you (the general "you") have some information about > the impending arival of space aliens who want to kill everything > and rape our planet (HA! Assuming that we leave them anything > beside cockroaches!), what are we gearing up *for*? >The tribes which were destroyed and enslaved when Europe was enslaved >did not even see it coming, or they’d have been impossible to take on. >They were like the native American tribes in being amazed at the >viciousness of their new enslavers. They scarely believed it till it was >too late.
I know. It was like "child’s play" to take what we wanted from them. And we lowst so damned much in the process. Well, we have earned the right to the title of "Stupid Rapists". We destroyed long before we discoved the natural resources. > But I’m not sure that some few of us can just make that decision > our of the blue and try to impose it on everybody else. > I would dearly love to have the power to do just that but … > well, I wonder if it would even be wise to use such power if I > had it. >At some point a blend of love and violence to defend it must arise, or >all the wonderful love will be is another defenseless plum to be plucked >by the cruel. The power to say what is right and make it stick must be >undertaken, or the cruel abusers will continue to hold the monopoly on >the power to say what is right!
This assumes that cruelty will always have to exist. If all of Prescott’s work (and others) is correct, cruelty doesn’t just happen. It is caused. As I have been saying for so long, we create our own monsters. We don’t *have* to and I am *pretty* sure that we don’t *want* to. It is just that too many people don’t understand, yet. I hope to do something to work toward that understanding. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they >> can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents >> sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front >> of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions >> his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and >> nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS >> TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!! >If his sister was free to tell him he’s sexy and jump his bones as soon > OK, go take a cold shower, Steve. That wasn’t about sex. It was > about the girl having to take a leak.
And here I thought it was about violence and the reasons behind machismo. >> Interestintgly, many of the Native American groups that have a >> reputation for violence, we not really violent. It was, for >> example, often thought of as very brave to simply *touch* one’s >> opponent. In those groups, the "wars" were nothing more than >> choreographed "dances" of bravery. >They were totally amazed by thw white man’s unbelievable cruelty and >viciousness. They were trying to "count coup" with coup sticks on the >enemy to prove their bravery, while the whites were shooting them down. > And many of them were able to retain the resulting amazement and > disbelief that us honkeys were able to *do* this sort of thing, > even generations later, and even after all that we had done to > try to destroy their cultures.
What you mean WE, white man?? > I just saw the apology, given by the head of the US Bureau of > Indian Affairs, to all of the American Indians, on the nuse the > night before last. I was alone when I saw it, thankfully, > because I actually jumped up and applauded what he said. > Of course, it didn’t have *quite* the power that it should have > had because this man is also of American Indian ancestory. > I was very pleased to see it, in any case.
Me too, but you’re right, it should have been a shame-faced committee of honkeys. > It will be interesting to see if he is retained in that position, > now. > Of course, with a new administration coming in, any number of > reasons for his departure could be made.
Lame-duck-ism?? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> But why would we *need* to be violent? (I’m not talking about >> today, but ultimately) >> We already know that we can turn out the meanest motha phakers >> that history has ever seen within a generation. A tad less mean >> in less time if we had to. >> Now, unless you (the general "you") have some information about >> the impending arival of space aliens who want to kill everything >> and rape our planet (HA! Assuming that we leave them anything >> beside cockroaches!), what are we gearing up *for*? >The tribes which were destroyed and enslaved when Europe was enslaved >did not even see it coming, or they’d have been impossible to take on. >They were like the native American tribes in being amazed at the >viciousness of their new enslavers. They scarely believed it till it was >too late. > I know. It was like "child’s play" to take what we wanted from > them. And we lowst so damned much in the process. > Well, we have earned the right to the title of "Stupid Rapists". > We destroyed long before we discoved the natural resources. >> But I’m not sure that some few of us can just make that decision >> our of the blue and try to impose it on everybody else. >> I would dearly love to have the power to do just that but … >> well, I wonder if it would even be wise to use such power if I >> had it. >At some point a blend of love and violence to defend it must arise, or >all the wonderful love will be is another defenseless plum to be plucked >by the cruel. The power to say what is right and make it stick must be >undertaken, or the cruel abusers will continue to hold the monopoly on >the power to say what is right! > This assumes that cruelty will always have to exist.
No, it acknowledges that it does and speaks to how to stop it. > If all of Prescott’s work (and others) is correct, cruelty > doesn’t just happen. It is caused. As I have been saying for so > long, we create our own monsters. We don’t *have* to and I am > *pretty* sure that we don’t *want* to. It is just that too many > people don’t understand, yet. > I hope to do something to work toward that understanding.
I agree that it is caused, but where is then the first cause of it? Was it propagated right along with our evolution from lower animals, and then why do some animals seem to get along so well? When did the first parent fuck up and decide to beat his kids? Or was it first a result of happenstance, of accident, of mistaken identity or mistaken happening which was inadvertantly taken as offense? I think there is some biochemical disorders in humans which make some few people impossible to tolerate in tirbal life, and so these people were ejected, likely at puberty when they became much too abusive, and they usually died without modern weaponry or the support of the tribe. So heretofore we have always weeded them out early, usually before they bred, and usually effectively, until the world filled up and became far less dangerous to humans, the large predators far reduced in number, and humans in posession of better weapons with which a man at a distance could reliably kill predators, and tools with which one man in a day could make a structure not easily entered by the largest predators. Then also the numbers of these ejectee’s of the tribes grew and the crowdedness of first Europe and then India and China got so great that these ejectees could band together and raid their tribes and finally could propagate their genetic defects. It may well be now that our species’ evil nature is a result of "poor weeding", and that to get rid of it we may have to once again do a mass "weeding" to catch up, and get rid of control freaks, fascists, the cruel, and the assinine before humans can re-invent their tribalism in a mass form. Steve
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Interestintgly, many of the Native American groups that have a > reputation for violence, we not really violent. It was, for > example, often thought of as very brave to simply *touch* one’s > opponent. In those groups, the "wars" were nothing more than > choreographed "dances" of bravery. >It looks to me that it is a question of pressure. Looking at the list of >peaceful and violent societies and knowing a little bit of history it seems >to make the point. Peaceful loving societies are usually in a pretected >environment with a stable supply of necessities (like a polenesian island >for example or some of the indians – after all the north american continent >was not very densly populated and there were enough resources to go around >for everyone). Take for another example the middle east or europe or china >where population density in comparison to available resources was high. >There it pays to hit the neighbor over the head to make a living. If you >pretty much can lay on the beach, get laid and pick your food from trees or >go fishing – who wants to fight? It you take the Vikings (just because we >were talking about them) who lived in a cold erea, had to wrestle their food >away from bears and wolfes and had to content with poor harvest due to the >weather – well it payse turning out some berserker and build some long boats >and decide as a society to go murder plunder rape and pilage is a good idea >and gets you into heaven (walhalla). Same held true for the Teutons and the >romans (who did away with them) and any other empire we had so far. Do not >know an empire in history that was created through peace, negotiation and >love making. No armies of lovers invading in the history I know.
I totally agree that this is the way that it *has been*, as we felt captive of our environments. Today, though, we are either at the point or approaching the point where we can easily feed the entire world. (No, this is not a suggestion that we forget about trying to limit population growth) This suggests that we need to reconsider some of our perspectives, in order to be more effective. > But why would we *need* to be violent? (I’m not talking about > today, but ultimately) > We already know that we can turn out the meanest motha phakers > that history has ever seen within a generation. A tad less mean > in less time if we had to. > Now, unless you (the general "you") have some information about > the impending arival of space aliens who want to kill everything > and rape our planet (HA! Assuming that we leave them anything > beside cockroaches!), what are we gearing up *for*? >See were we (american and western society) come from. We are still used to >be the meanest MF in the valley. It is our culture.
Just because our fathers and grandfathers have done something is usually not enough, by itself, to perpetuate the acts. We usually need more to cause us to act in any particular manner. In this society, part of this "more" seems to be along the lines of socital pressures and abuses to cause us to continue these harsher and punitive behaviors. >We are the ones who can >commit genicide and mass destruction and we do. We got a little bit >schizophrenic because we got so good at it that we can blow the whole planet >away. I think we got so good in violence that we scared the living sh… out >of ourselves. Now we want peace for us but we still want to kick ass. I >guess luckely for this society we found the out. We now can do "police >action" and kick some but the old fashioned way in some country that does >not have nuclear capabilities.
Don’t it make ya "proud" to be an ‘Murikun? > Even worse than that in some respects. > We *claim* to be on the side of "good and God". We offer to help > those who show some promise of helping us. > But when things change (we no longer need them, but they have all > of those kool weapons that we gave them to use for us and … > well, they are starting to think of themselves as having a bit of > power, as well), we make them into "the enemy" and blast them > with missles from afar. >Ain’t it great – we create our own supply of enemies that we can indulge our >need for violence on
Kinda like making real life video games. Well, they are black/poor/uneducated/non-xtian so they aren’t *real* people, nbow, are they. > >This society is schizophrenic. > Gawd, YES! > Mixed messages? Why, I’m sorry. I can’t find a single one here > …. among all of these mixed messages in the Mixed Message Room > ™. >I did not get that point
Sorry. I was just suggesting that our society seemed to be almost built on mixed messages, to the point that many wouldn’t recognize them if if they majored on mixed messages in kollech (and, it seems, that some have … and still don’t recognize them). They seem, in some respects, to be fundimental to our society. > This is the picture that many people get when I say that I am a > philosophical anarchist. > Every time, I have to stop and wonder why they would jump to the > most violent conclusion possible. > To sooth them, I tell them that I am a *philosophical* > anarcyhist, because the world is not ready for actual anarchy, > yet. Too many sick aspects alive and strong in too many > societies. >And too many people compared with room and resources. For anarchy to work >IMO you would have to reduce the world population by about 90 % (we might >still do it though – would not be the first time – only the first time world >wide)
If you were to look at population densities, especially in this country, you would see that something like 80-85% of the population does not live in cities, but in more rural areas. Yet so many of us cry about the heavy population. Is this fact or is this little more than Madison Avenue? I really don’t think that the problem comes so much from the populatiion that we have, but from the *perceptions* and how we deal with people. > I am pretty sure that it wouldn’t take much more than this, > assuming that the population is willing to make the change. > What I fear, though, is that it will take many times that long to > convince enough people to accept this as preferable, to even > *begin* to make it work. Many people are still smarting too much > from all of the abuses that they have experienced, to simply give > it up or to come around to this way of thinking. >I lean more towards a catastrophy or a perceived catastrophy. Like mass >riots and killings – If you base your predictions on history – changes >usually only result out of major conflict and then it goes quickly. >Revolution is the word.
But, as I told Steve (notice that he replied to this one, so I guess that I should reply … assuming that it is not an opportunity for him to talk about his wet dreams or to insult) when he was suggesting using terror to stop "oppression", when we use a tool like terror or violent revolution, we perpetuate those things on the following generations and tell them, by modeling, that they are Good Things ™. This is another reason that I don’t favor either armed anarchy or anarchy by violent overthrow. I see it coming about through folks simply losing interest in controlling methods. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am tempted, from time to time, to use Carl Rogers’ approach and > just make sure that we (some "we") can stop and listen to these > people so that they can (1) express their feelings fully > (repressed feelings are killers in maybe the largest extent > possible)and (2) think deeply about it and what they are and feel > about it so that they can move on. > Kathy is now working in a 100 bed locked mental health facility. > I may be switching careers, shortly, and joining her in this > work. > From all that I have read and from everything that I hear from > her, these people don’t need to be tied down and medicated > (except as temporary control measures). They need to be heard > (and not ignored or yelled at like their parents or others did to > them). They need to be parented and to have their needs met. >Agree with you on that one. As a society we are still prefering to punish >people like that.
But they often couch it in other reasons or terms. Fascinating to watch. > But I’m not sure that some few of us can just make that decision > our of the blue and try to impose it on everybody else. > I would dearly love to have the power to do just that but … > well, I wonder if it would even be wise to use such power if I > had it. >As I said – the kettle has to boil over to bring change
I’m not suggesting that this won’t work. In fact, as you have said, history shows that it will. Allowing it to go this way, though, still leaves us captive to our perceptual environments and leaves us with a taste of blood in our mouths. I know that we can do better. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
> I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they > can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents > sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front > of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions > his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and > nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS > TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!!
If his sister was free to tell him he’s sexy and jump his bones as soon as she wanted he would grow to be far less vain and far more loving in his adolescence. He wouldn’t have to live into violent fantasies of control in order to justify release of his sexual needs, he would have it handed to him as he should have it. And she wouldn’t need to pluck her eyebrows till they don’t grow right anymore, or starve herself till her periods stop, nor shave herself constantly over a third of her body, or become deluded with idiotic notions of white knight fantasies and dreams of wedding conquest that little girls get totally twisted by. > Interestintgly, many of the Native American groups that have a > reputation for violence, we not really violent. It was, for > example, often thought of as very brave to simply *touch* one’s > opponent. In those groups, the "wars" were nothing more than > choreographed "dances" of bravery.
They were totally amazed by thw white man’s unbelievable cruelty and viciousness. They were trying to "count coup" with coup sticks on the enemy to prove their bravery, while the whites were shooting them down. > But why would we *need* to be violent? (I’m not talking about > today, but ultimately) > We already know that we can turn out the meanest motha phakers > that history has ever seen within a generation. A tad less mean > in less time if we had to. > Now, unless you (the general "you") have some information about > the impending arival of space aliens who want to kill everything > and rape our planet (HA! Assuming that we leave them anything > beside cockroaches!), what are we gearing up *for*?
The tribes which were destroyed and enslaved when Europe was enslaved did not even see it coming, or they’d have been impossible to take on. They were like the native American tribes in being amazed at the viciousness of their new enslavers. They scarely believed it till it was too late. >Here too we would have to be honest, Remove most >religions currently in place and restructure our whole morality and >priorities. Material wealth would no longer be status but love and sex >would. And we would have to bring up our kids accordingly. It is our >decision – we got the brains – but for our sake as a society lets make one >either way and live with the consequences. > Boy, I agree! > But I’m not sure that some few of us can just make that decision > our of the blue and try to impose it on everybody else. > I would dearly love to have the power to do just that but … > well, I wonder if it would even be wise to use such power if I > had it.
At some point a blend of love and violence to defend it must arise, or all the wonderful love will be is another defenseless plum to be plucked by the cruel. The power to say what is right and make it stick must be undertaken, or the cruel abusers will continue to hold the monopoly on the power to say what is right! Steve
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Gosh, yes! The *evidence* of problems (and the resulting >> solutions) have been staring us in the face since the beginning >> of time. What has been lacking, though, was the perspective to >> be able to *see* it. >> With this "age of science" when many pray to the Gawds Of Science >> ™ for answers, now that science is getting around to shooting >> at the right targests, we may be a bit closer to the proper >> perspective. >> Now, even having said that, I am fully aware of the effects of >> abuse and that some folks will be *determined*, in spite of all >> of the best evidence to the contrairy, to perpetuate the abuses >> that they experienced (both in an attempt to justify it and in an >> attempt to understand it). I only hope that the number of folks >> who finally get it will so outnumber the folks who can’t allow >> themselves to get it that the first group will be able to help >> the second group to come to peace. >The only thing I want to hold against that and the web page this discussion >is based at – is the following: >Societies usually have a reason to be the way they are. Violent societies >with those "abuses" are usually the Kick-ass societies like vikings, romans, >huns and us good old western europeans and now americans (after we kicked >the indians ass a couple of feet under the ground) that destroy those loving >societies that are those "primitives" who are just into making love and >don’t have the capabilities to field some serious warriors. > I am not sure about "reasons", although as case fror that can be > made for *some* groups at *some* times. > I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they > can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents > sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front > of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions > his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and > nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS > TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!! > Interestintgly, many of the Native American groups that have a > reputation for violence, we not really violent. It was, for > example, often thought of as very brave to simply *touch* one’s > opponent. In those groups, the "wars" were nothing more than > choreographed "dances" of bravery.
It looks to me that it is a question of pressure. Looking at the list of peaceful and violent societies and knowing a little bit of history it seems to make the point. Peaceful loving societies are usually in a pretected environment with a stable supply of necessities (like a polenesian island for example or some of the indians – after all the north american continent was not very densly populated and there were enough resources to go around for everyone). Take for another example the middle east or europe or china where population density in comparison to available resources was high. There it pays to hit the neighbor over the head to make a living. If you pretty much can lay on the beach, get laid and pick your food from trees or go fishing – who wants to fight? It you take the Vikings (just because we were talking about them) who lived in a cold erea, had to wrestle their food away from bears and wolfes and had to content with poor harvest due to the weather – well it payse turning out some berserker and build some long boats and decide as a society to go murder plunder rape and pilage is a good idea and gets you into heaven (walhalla). Same held true for the Teutons and the romans (who did away with them) and any other empire we had so far. Do not know an empire in history that was created through peace, negotiation and love making. No armies of lovers invading in the history I know. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Saying that – my point is that both types of societies are just evidence of >the capabilities of the human brain to adapt. I would not call a violent >brain as defective – just one that adapted to its environment. If the need >of society is to have some "Berserkers" the human brain is capable to adapt >and deliver. We can be the ultimate warrior – violent without remorse – rape >pillage and murder. We also can be lovers (like some indian and polonesian >cultures are / were). > But why would we *need* to be violent? (I’m not talking about > today, but ultimately) > We already know that we can turn out the meanest motha phakers > that history has ever seen within a generation. A tad less mean > in less time if we had to. > Now, unless you (the general "you") have some information about > the impending arival of space aliens who want to kill everything > and rape our planet (HA! Assuming that we leave them anything > beside cockroaches!), what are we gearing up *for*?
See were we (american and western society) come from. We are still used to be the meanest MF in the valley. It is our culture. We are the ones who can commit genicide and mass destruction and we do. We got a little bit schizophrenic because we got so good at it that we can blow the whole planet away. I think we got so good in violence that we scared the living sh… out of ourselves. Now we want peace for us but we still want to kick ass. I guess luckely for this society we found the out. We now can do "police action" and kick some but the old fashioned way in some country that does not have nuclear capabilities. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The problem I have with the current society is that we have become >dishonest. The Vikings for example knew very well how to make berserkers. >They did it on purpose and those people (berserkers) were close to odin. It >was a very religious and respectable thing to be a berserker. By todays >standard those kids destined to become berserkers (or the like in other >societies) had to endure a lot of abuse. I am sure they did not perceive it >as abuse though as it was training to become something special – a >berserker – who is going to have a special place in Valhalla – right next to >Odin. It was an honor to be treated that way. That society was honest. They >knew they are going to make "raving loonatics" out of those kids who had to >be chained up at peace time and they deliberatly did it. The same with those >polenesian "free love" and "free sex" societies without AOC on the other end >of the spectrum where different qualities where emphasized >What worries me about this society is – that on the one hand we want to be >warriors (after all we have the best army in the world and can bomb anyone >back into the stone age) and on the other had simultaneously we say we are >oh so "peace loving" and for individual freedom and oh so "christian" love >thy neighbor etc. > Even worse than that in some respects. > We *claim* to be on the side of "good and God". We offer to help > those who show some promise of helping us. > But when things change (we no longer need them, but they have all > of those kool weapons that we gave them to use for us and … > well, they are starting to think of themselves as having a bit of > power, as well), we make them into "the enemy" and blast them > with missles from afar.
Ain’t it great – we create our own supply of enemies that we can indulge our need for violence on >This society is schizophrenic. > Gawd, YES! > Mixed messages? Why, I’m sorry. I can’t find a single one here > …. among all of these mixed messages in the Mixed Message Room > ™.
I did not get that point – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And that is going to be its >demise if things do not change. We should make up our minds if we want to be >warriors or lovers. Humans can be successfull in both – but not at the same >time. If we are to be warriors – then lets throw all those bills of rights >right out of the window and go back to the rule of the strongest and start >kicking the shit out of our kids and raping our women so that we produce >nice violent adults so they can become valuable members of a warrior >society. Lets do it with purpose and pride if we decide to be a society like >that and lets pay the price of a certain percentage of the population mamed >and killed in the process. > This is the picture that many people get when I say that I am a > philosophical anarchist. > Every time, I have to stop and wonder why they would jump to the > most violent conclusion possible. > To sooth them, I tell them that I am a *philosophical* > anarcyhist, because the world is not ready for actual anarchy, > yet. Too many sick aspects alive and strong in too many > societies.
And too many people compared with room and resources. For anarchy to work IMO you would have to reduce the world population by about 90 % (we might still do it though – would not be the first time – only the first time world wide) >Should we decide though to become a society of piece and lovers. Well we >would have to go even further there. It would take a couple of generations >to undo our violent past. > I am pretty sure that it wouldn’t take much more than this, > assuming that the population is willing to make the change. > What I fear, though, is that it will take many times that long to > convince enough people to accept this as preferable, to even > *begin* to make it work. Many people are still smarting too much > from all of the abuses that they have experienced, to simply give > it up or to come around to this way of thinking.
I lean more towards a catastrophy or a perceived catastrophy. Like mass riots and killings – If you base your predictions on history – changes usually only result out of major conflict and then it goes quickly. … read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > writes: >I’d be curious as to how you implement your policy of kindness in >the classroom. > The rule in my class is to a) respect yourself and others and b) to respect the > views of others, whether you agree with them or not. I do not allow students > to use slurs nor do I allow them to use putdowns. It isn’t a big deal. If a > student makes a mistake, I remind them of the rule, they apoligise and we go > on. My motto is "We’re going to be nice to each other, even if it kills us. " > Cate
I basically agree with your philosophy – but I thought we are not allowed to say "kill" anymore. Is that not a violation to Zero Tolerance Policy? Or is it OK in this syntax as it does not refer to killing someone else but "just" to killing "us"? I do get confused with all that PC and ZT censorship that we are having here in this "free country" — Free Spirit Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Gosh, yes! The *evidence* of problems (and the resulting > solutions) have been staring us in the face since the beginning > of time. What has been lacking, though, was the perspective to > be able to *see* it. > With this "age of science" when many pray to the Gawds Of Science > ™ for answers, now that science is getting around to shooting > at the right targests, we may be a bit closer to the proper > perspective. > Now, even having said that, I am fully aware of the effects of > abuse and that some folks will be *determined*, in spite of all > of the best evidence to the contrairy, to perpetuate the abuses > that they experienced (both in an attempt to justify it and in an > attempt to understand it). I only hope that the number of folks > who finally get it will so outnumber the folks who can’t allow > themselves to get it that the first group will be able to help > the second group to come to peace. >The only thing I want to hold against that and the web page this discussion >is based at – is the following: >Societies usually have a reason to be the way they are. Violent societies >with those "abuses" are usually the Kick-ass societies like vikings, romans, >huns and us good old western europeans and now americans (after we kicked >the indians ass a couple of feet under the ground) that destroy those loving >societies that are those "primitives" who are just into making love and >don’t have the capabilities to field some serious warriors.
I am not sure about "reasons", although as case fror that can be made for *some* groups at *some* times. I think that, in general, the societies are violent because they can be. Kind of a macho muscle-flexing thing that adolescents sometimes go through. Think of it like a teen standing in front of a mirror flexing. All goes well as long as nobody questions his muscularity or his ability to use it. He’s happy flexing and nobody else is bothered … except for his younger sister who HAS TO USE THE BATHROOM, _RIGHT_NOW_!!! Interestintgly, many of the Native American groups that have a reputation for violence, we not really violent. It was, for example, often thought of as very brave to simply *touch* one’s opponent. In those groups, the "wars" were nothing more than choreographed "dances" of bravery. >Saying that – my point is that both types of societies are just evidence of >the capabilities of the human brain to adapt. I would not call a violent >brain as defective – just one that adapted to its environment. If the need >of society is to have some "Berserkers" the human brain is capable to adapt >and deliver. We can be the ultimate warrior – violent without remorse – rape >pillage and murder. We also can be lovers (like some indian and polonesian >cultures are / were).
But why would we *need* to be violent? (I’m not talking about today, but ultimately) We already know that we can turn out the meanest motha phakers that history has ever seen within a generation. A tad less mean in less time if we had to. Now, unless you (the general "you") have some information about the impending arival of space aliens who want to kill everything and rape our planet (HA! Assuming that we leave them anything beside cockroaches!), what are we gearing up *for*? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The problem I have with the current society is that we have become >dishonest. The Vikings for example knew very well how to make berserkers. >They did it on purpose and those people (berserkers) were close to odin. It >was a very religious and respectable thing to be a berserker. By todays >standard those kids destined to become berserkers (or the like in other >societies) had to endure a lot of abuse. I am sure they did not perceive it >as abuse though as it was training to become something special – a >berserker – who is going to have a special place in Valhalla – right next to >Odin. It was an honor to be treated that way. That society was honest. They >knew they are going to make "raving loonatics" out of those kids who had to >be chained up at peace time and they deliberatly did it. The same with those >polenesian "free love" and "free sex" societies without AOC on the other end >of the spectrum where different qualities where emphasized >What worries me about this society is – that on the one hand we want to be >warriors (after all we have the best army in the world and can bomb anyone >back into the stone age) and on the other had simultaneously we say we are >oh so "peace loving" and for individual freedom and oh so "christian" love >thy neighbor etc.
Even worse than that in some respects. We *claim* to be on the side of "good and God". We offer to help those who show some promise of helping us. But when things change (we no longer need them, but they have all of those kool weapons that we gave them to use for us and … well, they are starting to think of themselves as having a bit of power, as well), we make them into "the enemy" and blast them with missles from afar. >This society is schizophrenic.
Gawd, YES! Mixed messages? Why, I’m sorry. I can’t find a single one here …. among all of these mixed messages in the Mixed Message Room ™. >And that is going to be its >demise if things do not change. We should make up our minds if we want to be >warriors or lovers. Humans can be successfull in both – but not at the same >time. If we are to be warriors – then lets throw all those bills of rights >right out of the window and go back to the rule of the strongest and start >kicking the shit out of our kids and raping our women so that we produce >nice violent adults so they can become valuable members of a warrior >society. Lets do it with purpose and pride if we decide to be a society like >that and lets pay the price of a certain percentage of the population mamed >and killed in the process.
This is the picture that many people get when I say that I am a philosophical anarchist. Every time, I have to stop and wonder why they would jump to the most violent conclusion possible. To sooth them, I tell them that I am a *philosophical* anarcyhist, because the world is not ready for actual anarchy, yet. Too many sick aspects alive and strong in too many societies. >Should we decide though to become a society of piece and lovers. Well we >would have to go even further there. It would take a couple of generations >to undo our violent past.
I am pretty sure that it wouldn’t take much more than this, assuming that the population is willing to make the change. What I fear, though, is that it will take many times that long to convince enough people to accept this as preferable, to even *begin* to make it work. Many people are still smarting too much from all of the abuses that they have experienced, to simply give it up or to come around to this way of thinking. I am tempted, from time to time, to use Carl Rogers’ approach and just make sure that we (some "we") can stop and listen to these people so that they can (1) express their feelings fully (repressed feelings are killers in maybe the largest extent possible)and (2) think deeply about it and what they are and feel about it so that they can move on. Kathy is now working in a 100 bed locked mental health facility. I may be switching careers, shortly, and joining her in this work. From all that I have read and from everything that I hear from her, these people don’t need to be tied down and medicated (except as temporary control measures). They need to be heard (and not ignored or yelled at like their parents or others did to them). They need to be parented and to have their needs met. LOL!! Coming from a very "rational" engineering background, it is difficult for me to think about this. Well, any career change is a bit troublesome, but to go to this extreem is more so. But all I keep thinking is "It is time to put up or shuddap." >Here too we would have to be honest, Remove most >religions currently in place and restructure our whole morality and >priorities. Material wealth would no longer be status but love and sex >would. And we would have to bring up our kids accordingly. It is our >decision – we got the brains – but for our sake as a society lets make one >either way and live with the consequences.
Boy, I agree! But I’m not sure that some few of us can just make that decision our of the blue and try to impose it on everybody else. I would dearly love to have the power to do just that but … well, I wonder if it would even be wise to use such power if I had it. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I was just saying something along those lines in a discussion >> that I was having in misc.kids, with someone who tended ro favor >> better treatment of kids, but keeps asking for scientific >> research to support such beliefs. >> I was telling him that, as I look back, I note that increasingly, >> science *is* tending to look into and even support the feelings >> that I have held for years. I have no illusions that they will >> get it all down before I die, but that the "cold, officious" >> scientific community is even *looking* in the right direction >> now, gives me hope. >Actually what was listed in those scientific studies has been know all >along. Look at the Norse Berserker. Those man "close to Odin" with a special >place in Walhalla had often to be chained up in piece times as they would >otherwise kill their own people too. In battle they would kill, rape and >pillage in a frency without regard for the own safety. And – here comes the >interesting part IMO – Most of them were Orphans whos mother died at child >biith and all of them received special "berserker training" (lots of >violence, getting used to pain etc) pretty much from the day they were born. >There is an exampe of the theory outlined in that webpage being practized on >real humans – even if it was century ago. I think the "berserker program" is >another proof for that theory" > Gosh, yes! The *evidence* of problems (and the resulting > solutions) have been staring us in the face since the beginning > of time. What has been lacking, though, was the perspective to > be able to *see* it. > With this "age of science" when many pray to the Gawds Of Science > ™ for answers, now that science is getting around to shooting > at the right targests, we may be a bit closer to the proper > perspective. > Now, even having said that, I am fully aware of the effects of > abuse and that some folks will be *determined*, in spite of all > of the best evidence to the contrairy, to perpetuate the abuses > that they experienced (both in an attempt to justify it and in an > attempt to understand it). I only hope that the number of folks > who finally get it will so outnumber the folks who can’t allow > themselves to get it that the first group will be able to help > the second group to come to peace.
The only thing I want to hold against that and the web page this discussion is based at – is the following: Societies usually have a reason to be the way they are. Violent societies with those "abuses" are usually the Kick-ass societies like vikings, romans, huns and us good old western europeans and now americans (after we kicked the indians ass a couple of feet under the ground) that destroy those loving societies that are those "primitives" who are just into making love and don’t have the capabilities to field some serious warriors. Saying that – my point is that both types of societies are just evidence of the capabilities of the human brain to adapt. I would not call a violent brain as defective – just one that adapted to its environment. If the need of society is to have some "Berserkers" the human brain is capable to adapt and deliver. We can be the ultimate warrior – violent without remorse – rape pillage and murder. We also can be lovers (like some indian and polonesian cultures are / were). The problem I have with the current society is that we have become dishonest. The Vikings for example knew very well how to make berserkers. They did it on purpose and those people (berserkers) were close to odin. It was a very religious and respectable thing to be a berserker. By todays standard those kids destined to become berserkers (or the like in other societies) had to endure a lot of abuse. I am sure they did not perceive it as abuse though as it was training to become something special – a berserker – who is going to have a special place in Valhalla – right next to Odin. It was an honor to be treated that way. That society was honest. They knew they are going to make "raving loonatics" out of those kids who had to be chained up at peace time and they deliberatly did it. The same with those polenesian "free love" and "free sex" societies without AOC on the other end of the spectrum where different qualities where emphasized What worries me about this society is – that on the one hand we want to be warriors (after all we have the best army in the world and can bomb anyone back into the stone age) and on the other had simultaneously we say we are oh so "peace loving" and for individual freedom and oh so "christian" love thy neighbor etc. This society is schizophrenic. And that is going to be its demise if things do not change. We should make up our minds if we want to be warriors or lovers. Humans can be successfull in both – but not at the same time. If we are to be warriors – then lets throw all those bills of rights right out of the window and go back to the rule of the strongest and start kicking the shit out of our kids and raping our women so that we produce nice violent adults so they can become valuable members of a warrior society. Lets do it with purpose and pride if we decide to be a society like that and lets pay the price of a certain percentage of the population mamed and killed in the process. Should we decide though to become a society of piece and lovers. Well we would have to go even further there. It would take a couple of generations to undo our violent past. Here too we would have to be honest, Remove most religions currently in place and restructure our whole morality and priorities. Material wealth would no longer be status but love and sex would. And we would have to bring up our kids accordingly. It is our decision – we got the brains – but for our sake as a society lets make one either way and live with the consequences. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. > It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was just saying something along those lines in a discussion > that I was having in misc.kids, with someone who tended ro favor > better treatment of kids, but keeps asking for scientific > research to support such beliefs. > I was telling him that, as I look back, I note that increasingly, > science *is* tending to look into and even support the feelings > that I have held for years. I have no illusions that they will > get it all down before I die, but that the "cold, officious" > scientific community is even *looking* in the right direction > now, gives me hope. >Actually what was listed in those scientific studies has been know all >along. Look at the Norse Berserker. Those man "close to Odin" with a special >place in Walhalla had often to be chained up in piece times as they would >otherwise kill their own people too. In battle they would kill, rape and >pillage in a frency without regard for the own safety. And – here comes the >interesting part IMO – Most of them were Orphans whos mother died at child >biith and all of them received special "berserker training" (lots of >violence, getting used to pain etc) pretty much from the day they were born. >There is an exampe of the theory outlined in that webpage being practized on >real humans – even if it was century ago. I think the "berserker program" is >another proof for that theory"
Gosh, yes! The *evidence* of problems (and the resulting solutions) have been staring us in the face since the beginning of time. What has been lacking, though, was the perspective to be able to *see* it. With this "age of science" when many pray to the Gawds Of Science ™ for answers, now that science is getting around to shooting at the right targests, we may be a bit closer to the proper perspective. Now, even having said that, I am fully aware of the effects of abuse and that some folks will be *determined*, in spite of all of the best evidence to the contrairy, to perpetuate the abuses that they experienced (both in an attempt to justify it and in an attempt to understand it). I only hope that the number of folks who finally get it will so outnumber the folks who can’t allow themselves to get it that the first group will be able to help the second group to come to peace. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
I didn’t see Cate’s reply, so I’ll just steal it from FreeSpirit’s post.
> writes: >Specifically, I refer to the decades of work done by James >Prescott on love and violence. ><http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html> (also go back >to the main page (top link) to see other work in this area). > When the Columbine tradgedy captured the attention of all of us, I had a > very interesting discussion with my students. We talked about what kids say to > each other, under the guise of "being funny" or "teasing". Many students spoke > of hurtful remarks which were made to them or to others. We talked about > group identification and how one group criticizes other groups. Bottom line, > according to my kids, is that remarks are made which denigrate another > using the mask of humor. Shows like "The Simpsons" and "South Park" model and > celebrate cruel humor.
There is cruel humor and there is humor that has no cruel intension. In one of the email discussions with Prescott, he asked "Can you tell me something about yourself?" I replied "Yes, but then I’d have to kill you.", referring to the absured secrecy that was prominent in some of the defense work in the recent past. Given all of his work with love and violence, I *should* have known better, but I have this problem. I have this sense of humor (mostly self-depricating) and I just *must* use it. That overridding need to use humor comes from liking to make people laugh (something that usually occurs in bed or … well, any time that I happen to be nedik in public) and to make them happy. The intent is not to be cruel. > It reinforced my classroom policy of kindness. What amazed me was how > many stories I heard where teachers not only ignored cruelty, but engaged in it > themselves, using sarcasm as a means of classroom management. > Cate
Saw more than a few teachers like that, myself. I’d be curious as to how you implement your policy of kindness in the classroom. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Specifically, I refer to the decades of work done by James >> Prescott on love and violence. >> <http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html> (also go back >> to the main page (top link) to see other work in this area). >Thanks for that link I could have used it in the discussion with treelo. >Made me feel good. A lot of things I read there I have been believing for a >long time. > I was just saying something along those lines in a discussion > that I was having in misc.kids, with someone who tended ro favor > better treatment of kids, but keeps asking for scientific > research to support such beliefs. > I was telling him that, as I look back, I note that increasingly, > science *is* tending to look into and even support the feelings > that I have held for years. I have no illusions that they will > get it all down before I die, but that the "cold, officious" > scientific community is even *looking* in the right direction > now, gives me hope.
Actually what was listed in those scientific studies has been know all along. Look at the Norse Berserker. Those man "close to Odin" with a special place in Walhalla had often to be chained up in piece times as they would otherwise kill their own people too. In battle they would kill, rape and pillage in a frency without regard for the own safety. And – here comes the interesting part IMO – Most of them were Orphans whos mother died at child biith and all of them received special "berserker training" (lots of violence, getting used to pain etc) pretty much from the day they were born. There is an exampe of the theory outlined in that webpage being practized on real humans – even if it was century ago. I think the "berserker program" is another proof for that theory" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I am not surprised at all that they stopped that research. Was for the same >reason IMO that they got so upset when research started to indicate that the >world is round and not flat. After all we cannot have any research that >produces results that are against our "moral believes" and social structure. > Well, they only stopped funding that one projest. Prescott is > not giving up and is continuing the research. A nation of boobs > cannot stop a Good Idea ™ who’s time has come. Even if they > stopped Prescott, there are others. Many others who also > continue. >If we would allow that we might become a free society and we cannot have >that. > I was just talking to a Canadian friend of mine about what it > would take for me to become a Canadian citizen. The web page > says that there is a 3 year residency requirement (I was *hoping* > to be able to do it by mail, *then* move up there to the Frozen > North ™). He said, "If you think that’s bad, look at what it > takes to become an Amereican citizen. Most Americans wouldn’t > know "freedom" if it sat in their lap." I agree fully. >Where would we end up if we would resolve problems and cure people >instead of punish them – After all righteousness can only be found in >punishment – can’t it. And then the notion to not punish adolescent sex and >extramarital sex. Well to keep that alone a couple 1000 murders and 10 of >thousands related violence a year are well worth the price – isn’t it. > I kinda like the idea of simply burning folks at the stake, > publicly, who have committed crimes. Perhaps if people were > *forced* to see the results of their punitive attitudes, up close > and personal where the stench of burning flesh made them nausious > then remind them that the baby that they are holding in their > arms may be next at the stake, they might start thinking > differently … but, no. That’s too close to Steve’s Skool of > Terror ™ and *definately* sends the wrong message. > But that *would* be, logically, where we are ultimately going > with all of this, if we keep going in this direction. > I hope for better. I *know* that we can *do* better. >p.s. You keep posting that way – I might ordain you > Well, my net.mom, Teresa Pitman, is already Mother Teresa. I > know that I could never hold a candle to her. > Glen (not even to her feet) Appleby > — > Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. > It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
>> Specifically, I refer to the decades of work done by James > Prescott on love and violence. > <http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html> (also go back > to the main page (top link) to see other work in this area). >Thanks for that link I could have used it in the discussion with treelo. >Made me feel good. A lot of things I read there I have been believing for a >long time.
I was just saying something along those lines in a discussion that I was having in misc.kids, with someone who tended ro favor better treatment of kids, but keeps asking for scientific research to support such beliefs. I was telling him that, as I look back, I note that increasingly, science *is* tending to look into and even support the feelings that I have held for years. I have no illusions that they will get it all down before I die, but that the "cold, officious" scientific community is even *looking* in the right direction now, gives me hope. >I am not surprised at all that they stopped that research. Was for the same >reason IMO that they got so upset when research started to indicate that the >world is round and not flat. After all we cannot have any research that >produces results that are against our "moral believes" and social structure.
Well, they only stopped funding that one projest. Prescott is not giving up and is continuing the research. A nation of boobs cannot stop a Good Idea ™ who’s time has come. Even if they stopped Prescott, there are others. Many others who also continue. >If we would allow that we might become a free society and we cannot have >that.
I was just talking to a Canadian friend of mine about what it would take for me to become a Canadian citizen. The web page says that there is a 3 year residency requirement (I was *hoping* to be able to do it by mail, *then* move up there to the Frozen North ™). He said, "If you think that’s bad, look at what it takes to become an Amereican citizen. Most Americans wouldn’t know "freedom" if it sat in their lap." I agree fully. >Where would we end up if we would resolve problems and cure people >instead of punish them – After all righteousness can only be found in >punishment – can’t it. And then the notion to not punish adolescent sex and >extramarital sex. Well to keep that alone a couple 1000 murders and 10 of >thousands related violence a year are well worth the price – isn’t it.
I kinda like the idea of simply burning folks at the stake, publicly, who have committed crimes. Perhaps if people were *forced* to see the results of their punitive attitudes, up close and personal where the stench of burning flesh made them nausious then remind them that the baby that they are holding in their arms may be next at the stake, they might start thinking differently … but, no. That’s too close to Steve’s Skool of Terror ™ and *definately* sends the wrong message. But that *would* be, logically, where we are ultimately going with all of this, if we keep going in this direction. I hope for better. I *know* that we can *do* better. >p.s. You keep posting that way – I might ordain you
Well, my net.mom, Teresa Pitman, is already Mother Teresa. I know that I could never hold a candle to her. Glen (not even to her feet) Appleby — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > writes: >I keep seeing discussions about youth violence. >Were it not such a sad state, I would have to laugh. >What might I see as being "funny" about youth violence or any >sort of violence? Well, the irony of it in most discussions that >seem to completely overlook a lot of important research. >Specifically, I refer to the decades of work done by James >Prescott on love and violence. ><http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html> (also go back >to the main page (top link) to see other work in this area). >Trying to identify those who might be prone to violence is >somewhat laughable to some extent. If done as best as it can be, >by methods like described in the report, it is like putting a >bandaid on someone who is the victim of third degree burns over >60% of his body. It is also like closing the barn door after the >horse has left the barn. >Look, instead, at ways to promote love. >Violence, by its very nature, is self-propigating. In the US, we >are very used to it and incorporate it into our legal system. >Love, OTOH, can be much more difficult to promote. >But, if the research is correct (and the sheer volume of it >suggesting this would tend to indicate that it at least deserves >a good hard look), the difficulty of the effort will well be >worth it. > When the Columbine tradgedy captured the attention of all of us, I had a very > interesting discussion with my students. We talked about what kids say to each > other, under the guise of "being funny" or "teasing". Many students spoke of > hurtful remarks which were made to them or to others. We talked about group > identification and how one group criticizes other groups. Bottom line, > according to my kids, is that remarks are made which denigrate another using > the mask of humor. Shows like "The Simpsons" and "South Park" model and > celebrate cruel humor. > It reinforced my classroom policy of kindness. What amazed me was how many > stories I heard where teachers not only ignored cruelty, but engaged in it > themselves, using sarcasm as a means of classroom management. > Cate
Don’t be amazed – it is a sign of our culture and very well explained in the link that Glenn lists – read it (you will need 1/2 hour or so – and you won’t be amazed no more Here again the link http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html — Free Spirit Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom.
Response:
>Youth violence has been one of the greatest single crime problems we >face in this country.
I keep seeing discussions about youth violence. Were it not such a sad state, I would have to laugh. What might I see as being "funny" about youth violence or any sort of violence? Well, the irony of it in most discussions that seem to completely overlook a lot of important research. Specifically, I refer to the decades of work done by James Prescott on love and violence. <http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html> (also go back to the main page (top link) to see other work in this area). Trying to identify those who might be prone to violence is somewhat laughable to some extent. If done as best as it can be, by methods like described in the report, it is like putting a bandaid on someone who is the victim of third degree burns over 60% of his body. It is also like closing the barn door after the horse has left the barn. Look, instead, at ways to promote love. Violence, by its very nature, is self-propigating. In the US, we are very used to it and incorporate it into our legal system. Love, OTOH, can be much more difficult to promote. But, if the research is correct (and the sheer volume of it suggesting this would tend to indicate that it at least deserves a good hard look), the difficulty of the effort will well be worth it. — Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Youth violence has been one of the greatest single crime problems we >face in this country. > I keep seeing discussions about youth violence. > Were it not such a sad state, I would have to laugh. > What might I see as being "funny" about youth violence or any > sort of violence? Well, the irony of it in most discussions that > seem to completely overlook a lot of important research. > Specifically, I refer to the decades of work done by James > Prescott on love and violence. > <http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html> (also go back > to the main page (top link) to see other work in this area). > Trying to identify those who might be prone to violence is > somewhat laughable to some extent. If done as best as it can be, > by methods like described in the report, it is like putting a > bandaid on someone who is the victim of third degree burns over > 60% of his body. It is also like closing the barn door after the > horse has left the barn. > Look, instead, at ways to promote love. > Violence, by its very nature, is self-propigating. In the US, we > are very used to it and incorporate it into our legal system. > Love, OTOH, can be much more difficult to promote. > But, if the research is correct (and the sheer volume of it > suggesting this would tend to indicate that it at least deserves > a good hard look), the difficulty of the effort will well be > worth it. > — > Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss’s job. > It is your job to find ways around your boss’s roadblocks.
Thanks for that link I could have used it in the discussion with treelo. Made me feel good. A lot of things I read there I have been believing for a long time. I am not surprised at all that they stopped that research. Was for the same reason IMO that they got so upset when research started to indicate that the world is round and not flat. After all we cannot have any research that produces results that are against our "moral believes" and social structure. If we would allow that we might become a free society and we cannot have that. Where would we end up if we would resolve problems and cure people instead of punish them – After all righteousness can only be found in punishment – can’t it. And then the notion to not punish adolescent sex and extramarital sex. Well to keep that alone a couple 1000 murders and 10 of thousands related violence a year are well worth the price – isn’t it. — Free Spirit Founding Father of the Church of Personal Freedom First Knight of the Knights of Personal Freedom. p.s. You keep posting that way – I might ordain you
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.