|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » Re: [I] Addictive violence (was: Teaching children to behave)
| Re: [I] Addictive violence (was: Teaching children to behave) [message #259558] |
Di, 25 April 2006 11:19 |
|
[Re-headed and posted in a new thread, since the old one is hard to
follow and has miles and miles of references by now]
8'FED wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>> The solution is to recognise this, and treat it as an antisocial
>> addiction.
>
> I'm unclear about what solution this actually is. *How* does one treat
> something as an antisocial addiction?
What I meant was that the fact that "using violence is an antisocial
addiction" has to be recognised, which it rarely is. Authorities are,
understandably, loathe to admit that using violence can be very
rewarding, giving a sense of security and empowerment.
And it *is* addictive. There are plenty of people who go looking for
fights, regurlarly, because they get, if you'll excuse the pun, a kick
out of it. It's not violence as a last resort, or because they lack the
ability to express themselves verbally. Physical violence is the most
satisfying way these people have of expressing themselves.
As Torak has said about bullies - there's no reason for it, apart from
the satisfaction of using violence and dominating another person.
This is quite well known in psychological circles. It's not anything
you'll hear teachers and politicians say, though. Because we all have
the potential for violence, and we all have the potential of becoming
addicted to it.
It should be noted that there isn't only physical violence, but also
verbal and emotional. We see it here, every now and then: the
satisfaction of a well delivered flame. It's the same thing.
But we don't talk about this, because we know it's wrong. We're not
supposed to enjoy handing out abuse, be it physical, verbal or
usenettial. And most of us are emphatic enough to realise the effects
of it, and feel more or less uncomfortable while still appreciating it
to some extent.
When applauding a well-crafted flame, we appreciate seeing someone
hurting another person.
I don't know how to solve these problems, and I shouldn't have used the
word "solution" as I did. But I'm convinced that no progress is
possible without acknowledging the attraction of violence.
Since nobody had brought it up, I thought I should.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Addictive violence (was: Teaching children to behave) [message #259609 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 13:33 |
|
Orjan Westin nospam [at] cunobaros.com wrote in
<4b67sgFvqkfdU2 [at] individual.net>:
> [Re-headed and posted in a new thread, since the old one is hard to
> follow and has miles and miles of references by now]
>
> 8'FED wrote:
> > Orjan Westin wrote:
> >
> >> The solution is to recognise this, and treat it as an antisocial
> >> addiction.
> >
> > I'm unclear about what solution this actually is. *How* does one treat
> > something as an antisocial addiction?
>
> What I meant was that the fact that "using violence is an antisocial
> addiction" has to be recognised, which it rarely is. Authorities are,
> understandably, loathe to admit that using violence can be very
> rewarding, giving a sense of security and empowerment.
>
> And it *is* addictive. There are plenty of people who go looking for
> fights, regurlarly, because they get, if you'll excuse the pun, a kick
> out of it. It's not violence as a last resort, or because they lack the
> ability to express themselves verbally. Physical violence is the most
> satisfying way these people have of expressing themselves.
>
> As Torak has said about bullies - there's no reason for it, apart from
> the satisfaction of using violence and dominating another person.
>
> This is quite well known in psychological circles. It's not anything
> you'll hear teachers and politicians say, though. Because we all have
> the potential for violence, and we all have the potential of becoming
> addicted to it.
>
> It should be noted that there isn't only physical violence, but also
> verbal and emotional. We see it here, every now and then: the
> satisfaction of a well delivered flame. It's the same thing.
>
> But we don't talk about this, because we know it's wrong. We're not
> supposed to enjoy handing out abuse, be it physical, verbal or
> usenettial. And most of us are emphatic enough to realise the effects
> of it, and feel more or less uncomfortable while still appreciating it
> to some extent.
>
> When applauding a well-crafted flame, we appreciate seeing someone
> hurting another person.
>
> I don't know how to solve these problems, and I shouldn't have used the
> word "solution" as I did. But I'm convinced that no progress is
> possible without acknowledging the attraction of violence.
>
> Since nobody had brought it up, I thought I should.
>
Boxing is not only a popular spectator sport, it also attracts many
amateur participants who do it purely for fun. The aim of professional
boxing is to cause physical damage to your opponent. This is entertainment
apparently. Forget fictional portrayals of violence, in much of the world
real violence is treated as an admirable career if it's done for
amusement.
It isn't violence that is disapproved of. It's violence that isn't being
used for our benefit that is generally seen as a bad thing. The problem is
that for the person committing an act of violence the definition of "our
benefit" may differ from our own.
Take a gang of youths hanging around on a street corner insulting, or even
assaulting passers by. In order to alter their behaviour you have to
demonstrate to them how what they are doing is different from a coast
guard or navy gun boat turning away a boatload of illegal immigrants, or a
secret service agent expelling a foreign spy. To them it's just defending
their territory. They know that is justified and they are told every day
that it's something that can be justifiably done using extreme measures.
So long as we accept violence on our behalf as a society we can't simply
tell people who use violence on behalf of a smaller group that violence is
wrong. We have to be more precise when deciding what lessons we are trying
to teach, and we have to make sure that we don't deal with gangs by
excluding them from the rest of society. Unless they are able to see
themselves as part of a wider community there is no way of ever persuading
them not to use violence to defend their own interests.
Unless we stop justifying violence that's done "on our behalf" of course.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Addictive violence (was: Teaching children to behave) [message #259689 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:28 |
|
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Orjan Westin nospam [at] cunobaros.com wrote in
>> What I meant was that the fact that "using violence is an antisocial
>> addiction" has to be recognised, which it rarely is. Authorities
>> are, understandably, loathe to admit that using violence can be very
>> rewarding, giving a sense of security and empowerment.
>>
>> And it *is* addictive. There are plenty of people who go looking for
>> fights, regurlarly, because they get, if you'll excuse the pun, a
>> kick out of it. It's not violence as a last resort, or because they
>> lack the ability to express themselves verbally. Physical violence
>> is the most satisfying way these people have of expressing
>> themselves.
<snip>
>> It should be noted that there isn't only physical violence, but also
>> verbal and emotional. We see it here, every now and then: the
>> satisfaction of a well delivered flame. It's the same thing.
>
> Boxing is not only a popular spectator sport, it also attracts many
> amateur participants who do it purely for fun. The aim of professional
> boxing is to cause physical damage to your opponent. This is
> entertainment apparently. Forget fictional portrayals of violence, in
> much of the world real violence is treated as an admirable career if
> it's done for amusement.
Yup. Mr Ali is regurlarly hailed as one of the greatest sportsmen ever.
To be fair, the violence doesn't have to be real, as long as it *looks*
real. It gives a sense of something important being at stake.
> It isn't violence that is disapproved of. It's violence that isn't
> being used for our benefit that is generally seen as a bad thing.
I'd use the term "unsanctioned violence". Boxers are sanctioned to
fight, under regulated circumstances, as the assumption is that their
opponent knows what they're getting into.
Soldiers and policemen are sanctioned to fight, again under regulated
circumstances (well, that's the idea - let's not have that debate again,
okay?), as they're doing it for the good of the whole society. (Yeah,
but let's keep this on a theoretical level, shall we?)
> The
> problem is that for the person committing an act of violence the
> definition of "our benefit" may differ from our own.
Precisely. Therefore it's unsanctioned.
> Take a gang of youths hanging around on a street corner insulting, or
> even assaulting passers by. In order to alter their behaviour you
> have to demonstrate to them how what they are doing is different from
> a coast guard or navy gun boat turning away a boatload of illegal
> immigrants, or a secret service agent expelling a foreign spy. To
> them it's just defending their territory. They know that is justified
> and they are told every day that it's something that can be
> justifiably done using extreme measures.
>
> So long as we accept violence on our behalf as a society we can't
> simply tell people who use violence on behalf of a smaller group that
> violence is wrong.
This is very true. The idea is to tell them that the violence needs to
be sanctioned by the greater society. (Okay, and if we escalate this we
come to violence sanctioned - or not - by the UN Security Council. But
two wrongs do not make a right, and unilateral action by, say, the UK
and USA does not give your gang of youths the right to act unilaterally.
It's a lot harder to argue nowadays, though.)
> We have to be more precise when deciding what
> lessons we are trying to teach, and we have to make sure that we
> don't deal with gangs by excluding them from the rest of society.
An interesting question is how to deal with groups of people who do not
consider themselves members of the surrounding community, like outlaw
biker gangs.
> Unless they are able to see themselves as part of a wider community
> there is no way of ever persuading them not to use violence to defend
> their own interests.
Agreed.
> Unless we stop justifying violence that's done "on our behalf" of
> course.
I still haven't decided if that's better or worse than violence done "on
their behalf".
I don't believe it's realistic for a society to get rid of the potential
of using violence against those who are threatening it. A society, just
like a person, should have the right to use reasonable force in
self-defence.
But that's where it gets complicated.
Maybe it's time to watch "Demolition Man" again. Lovely little piece of
satire, that film.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Addictive violence (was: Teaching children to behave) [message #259716 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 19:22 |
|
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Orjan Westin nospam [at] cunobaros.com wrote in
>>
>>I don't know how to solve these problems, and I shouldn't have used the
>>word "solution" as I did. But I'm convinced that no progress is
>>possible without acknowledging the attraction of violence.
>>
>>Since nobody had brought it up, I thought I should.
>
> Boxing is not only a popular spectator sport, it also attracts many
> amateur participants who do it purely for fun. The aim of professional
> boxing is to cause physical damage to your opponent. This is entertainment
> apparently. Forget fictional portrayals of violence, in much of the world
> real violence is treated as an admirable career if it's done for
> amusement.
The main difference is that boxing is done by two fighters who both
actively wanted to get involved in the "sport". Same with ultimate
fighting and whatnot - all parties involved consented. And that's where
the line goes - you can do whatever you like to whomever you like, as
long as they don't mind.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Addictive violence (was: Teaching children to behave) [message #259781 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 21:43 |
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:33:27 +0100, Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Unless they are able to see
> themselves as part of a wider community there is no way of ever persuading
> them not to use violence to defend their own interests.
This piece of your statement reminds me about how my sister's little girl
was one of the biggest bullies in her school. She's was only 13 years old,
and, she used to bully all the other kids in the school to steal their
parent's cigarettes for her so she'd leave them alone.
I don't know how many times my sister had a go at her for it, and told
her off, but she just really couldn't see that it was wrong. I even asked
her again and again why on earth she kept doing it, and the only reply I
ever got was "If you don't bully others, you get bullied yourself." :-(
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Addictive violence [message #260129 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 23:23 |
|
Orjan Westin posted:
> ... Soldiers and policemen are sanctioned to fight, again under
> regulated circumstances (well, that's the idea - let's not
> have that debate again, okay?), as they're doing it for the
> good of the whole society. (Yeah, but let's keep this on a
> theoretical level, shall we?)
>
Spoilsport ;-)
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Hencefort, the afpfavourite of Graycat :o)>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 05:13:27 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04321 Sekunden |
