You're one to talk about tastelessness, Sicarius.

anyone can say anything, even if it's the most outlandish statement ever made.

"of course the sky is actually neon orange. always. its easy to see."

to enter it into consideration you have to have something other than your statement. you says wars are less lethal? how so? murder is down? prove it

I am actually. I had this spicy pepper shit last night, so hot, so hot.
cant taste shit now. prolly not for another week.
it sucks everything i eat is tasteless mush.

Ok, so let me see if I understand:

* Sicarius got into some type of confrontation with a police officer.
* There are two different stories about what happened.

The Libertarian in me wants to know what happened, because I abhor any possible violations of an individual's civil liberties

The guy who'se been on the Internet for a decade wants to know, frankly, why Sicarius insists on making everything All About Him, and wonders how much of what is going on is a) being blown out of proportion or b) was egged on by an individual who has admitted a certain lack of respect for any type of authority figure

The problem with being the anarchist who cries wolf is that when bad crap actually *does* happen, people think you're as full of it as you have been on other things

what other thing did i lie about that happened to me

I dont recall ever lying about myself

I never said you lied about something that has happened to you. You must admit that certain of your other claims have proven to be of dubious veracity when fully examined, however. The one that pops to mind is the claim that the Icelandic governmental shakeup was a harbinger of the apocalypse...

i never said that at all.

i said that thousands of protestors were the main reason for icelanjds shift in government

With respect, I don't recall that bring how you initially wrote about the event, but you probably have a better recollection of your own words than I.

Please note I am *not* stating that a negative event involving a you and a police officer did not occur, nor am I claiming that you are in any way at fault. My statement is thus: you, in the past, have seemed *so* eager to generate chaos that I feel obligated to take your claims with a grain of salt.

generate chaos?

meaning what?
I'm not being defensive I just dont know what you mean

Sicarius, did you look at the link I posted? We've gone over this before, hunter gathering societies had tremendously larger rates of violent crime and murder than modern societies, even Jared Diamond says so, and he's a huge fan of hunter gatherer societies.

Korimyr, I will agree that authority is often based around the monopolization of violence, but that doesn't make it inherently bad, nor does it remove it's usefulness in oiling the bearings for a productive and peaceful society. No major interactions between humans can occur in a meaningful way that is mutually beneficial to both parties if there is not an understanding that they won't rape and murder each other. Reductions in violence and the allocation of authority to a lawful entity results in increased co-operation, which lets us harness the power of being social animals, and lets us all mutually benefit from the co-operation far more than if we competed. Not to mention we all live longer, with less injury, and less trauma.

"And the reduction of socially sanctioned forms of violence has led to less violence-- fewer incidents and fewer deaths-- overall, it has also led to those acts of violence becoming more irrational, more desperate, and more frequently directed at soft targets."

I'm not sure where you got the evidence for this claim... but I might agree. I can see that acts of violence now might be seen as more desperate because clearly anyone who resorts to violence under the threat of punishment from governmental authority is more desperate, and thus must resort to violence, than say a hunter gatherer who is under very little pressure not to resort to violence. And if it's directed at soft targets, that's probably because most everyone is a soft target nowadays. I would say that this is well worth the trade... You yourself said it, fewer incidents and fewer deaths.

"Overall, while this does mean fewer deaths, I believe that it is intrinsically more damaging to society and the psychological well-being of its members."

I suppose you're looking beyond the number of incidents and deaths though. I'm just wondering what your premises and logical thought process is for this conclusion. Why do you believe that violence is necessary for psychological wellbeing? Aren't sports a good substitute? What are you proposing we do?

I certainly don't see violence as a primal need... if anything I see it as simply a tool, a means to an end, to secure your own interests and to defend those close to you. It's a common psychological claim, but I don't see how the "repression" of violence necessarily leads to depression and self-destructive behaviour. I can look around and see that the vast majority of productive members of society are extremely non-violent and yet are very much psychologically stable.

that does not prove that "Violence between human beings has certainly declined drastically over the course of human history, and has even declined noticeably within my lifetime."

I'm not interested in a disscussion on primitivism right now, so please dont bait me because we all know I cant resist

Hey Sicarius, apparently you still haven't looked at the link I posted. Please take 20 minutes or so to listen to what Pinker has to say on the subject.

oh didnt realize you meant a link you posted in this thread

In other words, we no longer have ginfights in the streets between armed men on a regular basis. Instead, we have people who crack and take a gun up to a bell tower or, more recently, into schools and workplaces and really wreak havoc upon unarmed citizens. Of course, if concealed carry were the norm, these might be ended much earlier with the death of the whack job the moment he pulled the gun and started shooting.

Chrisp, repression of violence does lead to depression and self-destructive behavior. That is why society has developed alternative means for expressing our anger (violence) in constructive or demonstrative ways. Ever wonder why the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world were "always such a godd child. Never caused any trouble."? They supress the urge to vent and let it build up until they crack. I did this in the 6th grade when I finally cracked and threw three chair-desks (the combined units) across a classroom at a kid who was teasing me and busted a chalkboard with them. It was a Christmas party and the class rooms (this was the quad style with folding walls) had been broken up to allow for a party on one side and a quiet area on the other. I was a wuiet 11-year old and just wanted to read Return of the King (it was Christmas of 1977). Tis kid had teased and teased me and came in and started flicking my ears. I finally punched him in the nose and he said he was going to tell, so I threw the desks at him. I wanted to hit him. I distinctly remember thinking I'd be better off if he were dead. Dark thoughts for an 11 year old. And if you doubt the veracity cause I was 11, you'd be amazed at the strength an 11 year old can have when the adrenalin kicks in. I spent the next two years in group counseling, although the kid teasing me got expelled when a couple other kids in the room at the time told the school counselor what had transpired.

I can't back this up but I doubt that the lack of violence in society contributes to depression. I would, however, be interested to hear of any credible sources that advocate this theory.
I also doubt that serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer are a new phenomenon or are more frequent today than in earlier times. But once again I would be interested to hear if this notion has any basis.

I have a theory regarding serial killers as a new phenomenon: There are more people in the world today, no? This much cannot be argued against, can it? Well, laws of probability dictate that with more people on earth, and a certain percentage is going to become serial killers, it's only logical that we would have more of them with a drastic increase in population.

Draugnar... I'm pretty sure that's how violence happens normally. Are you saying if you were somehow sanctioned to hit the bully a few times a month you wouldn't have had the on tantrum? Violence usually comes in those bursts... Are you saying you would be even worse off if you didn't have that tantrum and just repressed it further? Personally, I've always thought the "bottled up anger" idea was complete bunk.

Also, I seriously wouldn't attribute school shootings and whatnot to repressed violence building up in the individual... We live in an age of high technology, and weapons of high lethality. There is always a small percentage of people who are mentally unstable and who might get their hands upon a submachine gun and shoot up a school. The fact remains that the vast majority of people, despite "repressed violence" don't do anything of the sort. A myriad of factors have to come into play in the concoction of such tragedies. They are extremely far from the norm, but you'd think with a large population of violence deprived individuals with access to highly lethal weapons such outbursts would be far more common than they are. Also I'd like to point out that most of these crazy shootings occur in the United States, where perhaps violence is less repressed than in Europe, where violence is much more frowned upon in cinema and video games and in general. I'm not blaming video games and cinema for violence, because I think that's bunk too, but I seriously don't think that violence is a psychological need whose repression leads to depression and self destructive behaviour... at least not amongst the vast majority of the populace.

Onar, exactly. That's basically my argument without the longwinded-ness. =)

I think Scarius must have a few celebratory beers before for he started this thread thus causing the randomness of some of his posts

Sent from: col.goose10 (85 ) Sent: 04:10 AM
I think Scarius must have a few celebratory beers before for he started this thread thus causing the randomness of some of his posts
==================================================
Oh no. That's just Sicarius being Sicarius. A generous helping of anarchy and non sequiturs.

@Chrisp: Well, the thing about technology is a part of the argument I left out, but it's more-or-less is a nice supplement.

"Korimyr, I will agree that authority is often based around the monopolization of violence, but that doesn't make it inherently bad, nor does it remove it's usefulness in oiling the bearings for a productive and peaceful society."

I don't disagree, except with your use of the word "often". *All* authority is either based upon the potential to inflict violence, or the potential to inflict other consequences which is supported by *others'* ability to inflict violence. Period.

But unlike the anarchist, I do not view this as reason to reject authority. Instead, I recognize it as the reason why attempting to reject violence is inherently futile, and why governmental condemnation of violence is hypocritical.

"No major interactions between humans can occur in a meaningful way that is mutually beneficial to both parties if there is not an understanding that they won't rape and murder each other."

Yes, certainly. But where does this understanding come from?

It comes from the understanding on the part of both parties that the *other* is just as capable of raping and murdering them. Without that capacity, there is no incentive for the other party to uphold their agreement.

"And if it's directed at soft targets, that's probably because most everyone is a soft target nowadays. I would say that this is well worth the trade... You yourself said it, fewer incidents and fewer deaths."

Fewer incidents and fewer deaths. But clearly more derangement.

I don't think it's a good trade.

"Why do you believe that violence is necessary for psychological wellbeing?"

It's an expression of our natural territorial and hierarchical instincts. While it is a good thing to control and channel our instinctual urges into productive ends, it is not good to attempt to deny or suppress these instincts. It doesn't work and it leads to aberrant behavior.

"Aren't sports a good substitute? What are you proposing we do?"

Sports, especially contact sports, are a good substitute. But how many people do you know who *play* sports, as opposed to merely watching them? I suspect this is a big part of "soccer hooliganism" and out-of-control Little League parents; they're getting close to what they need, but they're not getting it, and they don't understand why.

"I can look around and see that the vast majority of productive members of society are extremely non-violent and yet are very much psychologically stable."

I don't see them as stable at all. They're only stable as long as their comfortable worldview is supported by outside circumstances.

@Chrisp: I'm saying if I had found an outlet for my anger, I WOULDN'T have hit him OR gone over the edge. My personality is such that I tend to internalize which is bad. I now take Tai Chi and spend time at the shooting range to allow me to find peace and vent my frustrations. In fact, I commonly go fire a few clips before I go to Tai Chi class.

@Chrisp: What is your degree in exactly? Oh wait, your still in High School. Take a few colege-level psych classes (or minor in it like I did) and see if your view isn't changed. As far as Europe goes, they just have a different way of venting. It's called rugby! It's an even more violent sport than American Football or Hockey. No pads and if your head is between the other players foot and the ball, oh well...

Oh, and Europe has people who blow up entire trains and the tube and such. They also have a real problem with their teens in England right now. Something about teens running around the streets after dark acting like animals, sexually and physically assaulting adults...

@Draugnar, well I'm glad you've found a solution. Perhaps I'm not a good judge of this because I do spar weekly. I've never seen it as any sort of outlet for anger or violence, I just do it because it's fun and competitive. It's the same sort of enjoyment I get out of playing multiplayer video games, just with exercise, and more adrenalin and endorphins built in.

@Korimyr, great post! I'll show you where I might disagree, though you might persuade me. =)

"I don't disagree, except with your use of the word "often". *All* authority is either based upon the potential to inflict violence, or the potential to inflict other consequences which is supported by *others'* ability to inflict violence. Period."

Perhaps we have different definitions of authority. It seems as though you define authority based around violence. Perhaps I'm being colloquial, but I see authority as far more faceted than such. My parents have authority over me because I'm dependant upon them. Many people are in positions of authority because they are considered experts in their field and it is common to defer to their superior knowledge and experience. Religious leaders have authority over their followers because they are believed to have a closer connection or understanding of God or spirituality. This argument is beside the point though. =)

"Yes, certainly. But where does this understanding come from?

It comes from the understanding on the part of both parties that the *other* is just as capable of raping and murdering them. Without that capacity, there is no incentive for the other party to uphold their agreement."

Yes, this is partly true, but the other can't murder them if I've already murdered them. There is an understanding because both of us have something to offer the other, and co-operation, and the continuation of co-operation is mutually beneficial to the both of us, such that we have to suspend violence. There are also social pressures; reputation is important because humans have long term memory that's well equipped to remember who's wronged who in the past. Other people who I might gain fantastically from by co-operation will be much more hesitant to co-operate with me if I've assaulted and exploited previous "partners".

"Fewer incidents and fewer deaths. But clearly more derangement.

I don't think it's a good trade."

Clearly more derangement? I simply don't think that's true. It may be that the only violence that happens today is because of derangement, but that does not mean there was less deranged violence in the past. I think it's more likely such deranged violence was simply diluted by the commoner violences. It still remains that it's a small percentage of the population that explodes in a violent outburst and shoots up a school, that I think is probably comparable to the percentage of mental instability in a population.

"It's an expression of our natural territorial and hierarchical instincts. While it is a good thing to control and channel our instinctual urges into productive ends, it is not good to attempt to deny or suppress these instincts. It doesn't work and it leads to aberrant behavior."

Ok, so I think you've identified the real need here as a need to assert one's territory and place in a hierarchy. I really just view violence as the means to such an end. If you look in nature, a great deal of conflicts of territory and hierarchy are simply settled with threat display, which you would rightly say is a threat of violence, but it is still not violence, or it's settled passively with scent markings. There are many means to an end, and I view violence as just one tool in the shed, albeit one that's become more and more obsolete as we move toward more and more co-operation and less exploitation.

"Sports, especially contact sports, are a good substitute. But how many people do you know who *play* sports, as opposed to merely watching them? I suspect this is a big part of "soccer hooliganism" and out-of-control Little League parents; they're getting close to what they need, but they're not getting it, and they don't understand why."

So by this reasoning would you expect sports players, both professional and amateur, to commit less violent crime? This is a testable claim and might be interesting for a psychology major. It would be a boon to your argument if such a correlation were discovered.

Besides which, if we've identified sports as a viable substitute, then why can't we get along without violence and savagery which was the original proposition with which you seemed to take some issue? "I think we should all just get along without the need for violence and savagery." Draugnar's identified that Tai Chi and shooting ranges are appropriate checks and neither really involve violence and savagery, although I suppose they do have connections.

I thought you were in university at McGill Chrispy?