This made me really mad

[The Wrath]

So, I just got back from New Orleans, because I had to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Conference. Last night, my friends and I went to Bourbon Street and...I went a little overboard getting Mardis Gras beads (no, I did not EARN them, I bought them). I was a little drunk, and I saw some beads with little ornaments of the Israeli flag on them...normally I wouldn't have bought them, but since I was drunk and since I support Israel, I bought them. So, I put them on and one of the girls in my class saw me, got this look on her face like she had seen a ghost, and said something along the lines of "why did you get THOSE?" The way she asked me that, you would think I was wearing beads with swastikas on them. So, I don't really have any deep epiphanies resulting from this story...it just made me mad, and I wanted to share it with other people who I know would agree with me.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Moose

[scottkursk]

I'd be willing to bet your friends reaction wasn't about your support of Israel. It is probably that she thought you were wearing something that had to do with Judaism and assumed you were a Christian. Plus there may have been a tinge of bigotry but you would really have to ask her why she had that reaction. I've had the same gaping reaction when I mention I'm an atheist. It seems to be that spit take followed by a "yourawhaaaat!?"

p.s. glad to hear you had fun at the forensics convention. I'd have thought they'd be a bit stiff.

p.p.s. apologies for the above joke, it's an old morticians joke I picked up at work.

[The Wrath]

Well, she's not a Christian either and she knows I'm not (at least, I've told her before). She's also an extreme left-winger...don't know if it's fair to call her a Marxist, but she's pretty close.

As to your joke, the convention was really more of a criminology convention, than a forensics convention, which kind of surprised me, but there were some interesting presentations. I particularly enjoyed the one about the influence of violent video games.

[EC]

I particularly enjoyed the one about the influence of violent video games.

Did they actually assert that such an influence actually exists in reality?

[AwakeAndFree]

If she's a Marxist, then her reaction is the typical leftist response to a country that defends itself while using (God forbid) superior military force

She'd probably react the same way to an American flag, if she wasn't hoping for Democrats to win sometime in the future.

[The Wrath]

Did they actually assert that such an influence actually exists in reality?

Yes...that's the general consensus among all the studies I've seen, and the evidence is pretty convincing.

[EC]

Yes...that's the general consensus among all the studies I've seen, and the evidence is pretty convincing.

Well since you seem to be a relatively young guy I'm going to assume you grew up playing video games, I know I did Mortal Combat,ect. I've countless friends who have also played similar games, and I'm going to also assume you have, too. Ever seen any of your friends go out and kill someone because they did it in a game? Ever did it yourself? For both I'm again going to assume no based on the same answer for myself. I would like to see this "pretty convincing" evidence that asserts the contrary in contrast to overwhelming personal evidence that states just the opposite. I'll actually go a step further and state that things like this are as invalid as stating that there are "social" causes for crimes. None of it is true and it shows the bad philosophical basis of the person that makes these rediculous claims.

[The Wrath]

You're assuming that just because it doesn't happen in all cases, it doesn't occur at all. First of all, I have never heard anyone claim that video games "cause" violent crime. The claims involved in cases like these say that violent video games contribute to agressive behavior.

Some of the evidence is pretty convincing. For instance, children who play violent video games are likely to get into more arguments with their teachers. They are also more likely get into fights at school. Now, that could just be a correlation, not causality, but there are other experiments that suggest there might be a causal relation. There was a study conducted in which people were surveyed before going into a movie. Half the group went to a nonviolent movie and half went to an action movie. After the movies, the people were surveyed again and the half that went to the action movie reported more agressive feelings than the nonviolent group, and it was also shown that their agression had increased.

If you don't believe there are social causes of crime, then why is it that all the crazy terrorists come from the Middle East? Why are crimes more prevalent among the lower class? Pure chance? I'm not suggesting that social factors excuse crime; it still winds up being an individual choice, and if an underpriviliged kid walks into my house to rob me, I don't care that he's had a hard childhood...I'm still gonna shoot the son of a bitch, but suggesting that social factors cannot contribute to deviant behavior is tantamount to saying that the earth is flat.

[EC]

No it's not you and the people who make these theories are confusing the context of a peron's life with a cause of crime. Of course people living in a more irrational society are more likely to act irrationally that's a given. But at the root it is because they implicitly have chosen to accept that societies non-sense when they could have rejected it, they chose to accept its bad philosophy even though they saw with their own eye's that the philosophy is contradictory, when they actually committed what ever crime it was they did they could have chosen not to, but there previous acceptence of a horrible philosophy blinded their thinking. If *that* is how you want to attribute crime to a society, I accept that, but you have to remember each person had a choice, and the crime was not *caused* by anything except his poor thinking skills. Society just provided a bad context of which he based his dicision, it in know way *caused* his choice. "Believing" that it did is evidence of poor thinking on its advocates. Promoting it is essentially evil and leads to excuses for the guilty and the dumbing down of the rest of "society".

As to violent video games and movies, what your essentially saying is that the studies stated watching or playing them caused strong emotions in people, stronger in others. But isn't this a given. One would have to accept that emotions were a valid form of cognition to accept that playing a game that causes strong emotions *causes* you to act on those emotions. But emotions are *NOT* valid forms of cognition and when they conflict with your reason, a rational person will follow his reason not his emotions if the two are in conflict. What the survey's you spoke of showed was that *some* people DON'T do this. But this is because they have also accepted the wrong philosophy and this lead to *them* making the wrong *choices* NOT the video game somehow choosing for them or "causing" them to make the wrong choice.

In another thread when speaking of criminology you stated most of the theories of it come from Marxist leaning. To which I say that is exactly why they are FALSE in their present incarnations. I'm sure you might say there are plenty of criminologists out there with PhD's and whatnot, propounding this stuff, but there are also a lot of Kantian philosophers who have PhD's propounding their *stuff*. But the argument from authority doesn't make non-sense any more valid. The philosophy is false and therefore any science that explicitly accepts its wrong premises is FALSE. Saying that is NOT like saying that the Earth is flat it IS more like me defending that the Earth is round when every one around me is screaming in my ear that it is flat.

[The Wrath]

First off, I don't remember saying that most theories come from Marxist leanings. We spend more time on those in school, because they are generally more complicated. The theories are pretty equally distributed across the political spectrum. I have never used an argument from authority. I don't care if it was a PhD or a three-legged dog that did the research; if the research has convincing evidence, I'm going to accept it.

Okay, now...I am a social scientist. It is my job to look for the causes of crime, so far as the social sciences can. I don't disagree with anything in your post, but you're moving past the realm of sociology/psychology into philosophy. What you're essentially saying is that people choose to accept bad philosophies and, therefore, act irrationally. Okay, that's fine and I don't disagree at all. But social science research cannot go that deep. Just by the laws of statistics, you can figure out that, given a large number of people, some will choose to act on bad philosophy and some will not. So, if video games contribute to violent behavior, yes, it is ultimately up to the individual whether or not to act violently, but that doesn't mean that violent media cannot cause certain people to lean one way or the other. They don't affect me, but everyone is different. If violent games cause some people to act violently, that doesn't mean that they are excused from any personal guilt. It doesn't even lessen their guilt, because they had to make the conscious choice to commit their acts.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that people commit crime when they accept bad philosophy. I agree, but look at it this way. If there is no bad philosophy that is advertised to people, then they can't accept it so readily. So, if the only video games out there were pro-Objectivist, we might see a rather nice result in the younger generation. If, as seems to be the case, most games are along the lines of Grand Theft Auto, then more and more kids are going to choose to integrate bad premises into their lives. That's all I'm saying. You can go into the underlying philosophy of choice and consequence if you want to, but that is beyond the realm of social sciences. Social sciences must deal with what is on the surface, and if research consistently shows a correlational or causal connection between behavior and a certain social influence, then I will accept it as true.

[EC]

Moose-- Go to THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fands @ http://www.forums.4aynrandfans.com/ check out Stephen Speichers answer on the thread Human Sciences and Statistics in the sub-forum Metaphysics & Epistemology of the Philosophy forum. His post is nearly identical to my thinking here and he states it very succintly. I'm not providing a direct link there because I don't know if it's moral to link to a nearly identical forum that broke off from this one of not. The morality of internet forum linking, now there's a new science.

EDIT: Whoops, I guess it created the link anyways, oh well.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Rational_One

[EC]

Also you might want to consider this quote frome Ayn Rand: Philosohpy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationsip to existence... In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

Has anyone else noticed that this thread seems to be in some "entangled state" between the Misc. and the Trashcan sections of this forum?

[punk]

If she's a Marxist, then her reaction is the typical leftist response to a country that defends itself while using (God forbid) superior military force

She'd probably react the same way to an American flag, if she wasn't hoping for Democrats to win sometime in the future.

Indeed just like in the 19th century America was "defending" itself from the American Indians, and in the 1840's America was "defending" itself from Mexico, and in 1898 America was "defending" itself from Spain.

Israel is "defending" itself from the Palestinians, in the same way that in the 1940's Germany was "defending" itself from the Jews, Gypsies, etc.

[EC]

Indeed just like in the 19th century America was "defending" itself from the American Indians, and in the 1840's America was "defending" itself from Mexico, and in 1898 America was "defending" itself from Spain.

Israel is "defending" itself from the Palestinians, in the same way that in the 1940's Germany was "defending" itself from the Jews, Gypsies, etc.

There's so much wrong with these statments that I don't know where to begin ,so instead I'll just say, Punk I don't think you should be on an Objectivist forum. Why don't you go try Michael Moore's website? It seems like it would fit your views better. Or maybe Al-Jazeera has a forum you might like?

[The Wrath]

Rational One, none of your posts really disagree with what I have said. Your just talking on a deeper level about how people choose their philosophical principles, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that social factors can't effect which principles people will choose. If you don't believe that social interactions can change human behavior, then there is no point in drug rehab centers, there is no point in trying to raise children in a certain way, and there is no point in pretty much any of the social sciences. So, think about the implications of that. Like I said, your posts go to a deeper level than social sciences are able to, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that you should discount the fact that social sciences are able to tell us something about what causes certain people to lean more towards one philosophical system than another.

The best way I can explain this research in the context of your posts is that violent video games, movies, etc. cause CERTAIN (not all) people to lean towards nihilistic philosophical principles to an extent that is greater than they might have, had they never interacted with the violent media. Now, that is an inference that would never be made in a scholarly journal...a scholarly journal would just say that violent media seems to contribute to more aggressive behavior, since research is supposed to be unbiased in terms of its underlying philosophy. So, I am able to make the above statement because my principles closely resemble those of Objectivism and I am fitting the results of that research to my own principles. But, since social science is supposed to remain unbiased and is supposed to record only the inferences that can be directly made from research, I would never write that in a scholarly journal. Your stance on freedom of choice is a stance that comes from your philosophy, not social science research, so it is inappropriate to try and integrate the two in a non-biased research design. On this forum, however, it is more than appropriate...so, I hope that clears up any confusion.

[Al Kufr]

There's so much wrong with these statments that I don't know where to begin ,so instead I'll just say, Punk I don't think you should be on an Objectivist forum. Why don't you go try Michael Moore's website? It seems like it would fit your views better. Or maybe Al-Jazeera has a forum you might like?

Now Rational_One, I think you’re overreacting. I mean it’s not like the entire American Southwest is a better place because of the American invasion of Mexico.

I mean just imagine what Texas might have looked like if we hadn’t taken it over? Nationalized Oil fields, corruption, and a third world economy.

OHH, so much wasted potential, I mean just look at Mexico now, it's paradise on earth!!!

All kidding aside, I was born and lived in Mexico and i can honestly say that the best parts of Mexico can be found in the U.S.

I’m glad the U.S. invaded, it made going to America a lot easier.

[Edit: Corrected about 20 spelling errors. -GC]

Edited February 27, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[EC]

Well Moose I'll leave it at that then, I like your answer but I still don't fully agree with you. However, I have other things to worry about then this.

[The Wrath]

Why was this moved to the traschan? There was a reasonably intelligent conversation going on in here.

EDIT: Nevermind, it seems to be in both places simultaneously.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Moose

[scottkursk]

Well, she's not a Christian either and she knows I'm not (at least, I've told her before).  She's also an extreme left-winger...don't know if it's fair to call her a Marxist, but she's pretty close.

As to your joke, the convention was really more of a criminology convention, than a forensics convention, which kind of surprised me, but there were some interesting presentations.  I particularly enjoyed the one about the influence of violent video games.

Aha. That would make sense. Back in the 80's during the height of the anti-apartheid movement I remember seeing posters around campus "revealing" the Israeli/South African connection. It was basically trying to draw a moral equivalance to Isael and the Apartheid system and therefore should be boycotted. It was the same people that also used to support the PFLP on campus and wearing black and white checked scarves while handing out copies of Worker's World Daily.

The hatred of Israel on the left has to do with the fact Israel commts the gravest of sins for a foreign government: they are our allies.

[punk]

There's so much wrong with these statments that I don't know where to begin ,so instead I'll just say, Punk I don't think you should be on an Objectivist forum. Why don't you go try Michael Moore's website? It seems like it would fit your views better. Or maybe Al-Jazeera has a forum you might like?

I noticed you didn't list anything resembling a fact to counter what I said, just some useless rhetoric.

The Native Americans just gave their land and lives to the whites for the betterment of humanity?

Mexico had some sort of need to start a war with America? I suppose you'd say America was defending Texas. Let's see a bunch of anglos settle in Mexican territory and declare independence? I suppose if Mexicans in the southwest US became a majority and declared independence you'd support them?

Spain, a rump empire (holding only Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico) with an obsolete fleet just decided to attack a nation with a state of the art military?

I do know something about Nazi propaganda, and they did justify the holocaust as a "defensive" measure.

The fact of the matter is that every aggressor in history has said their actions were "defensive". When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it was for "defensive" reasons. Hell, Alexander the Great probably claimed his conquest of Persia was purely defensive.

[JMeganSnow]

Aggression has TWO g's in it, btw.

I noticed you didn't list anything resembling a fact to counter what I said, just some useless rhetoric.

What about your useless rhetoric? What does this have to do with Israel? You are equating shooting back with aggression. Israel has never attacked ANYONE that didn't fire on them FIRST.

The Native Americans just gave their land and lives to the whites for the betterment of humanity?

Tribes of stone age barbarians don't own land, they occupy it, much in the manner that animals don't own land, but occupy it. If, on their own, they progress to a society in which land property rights are recognized and implemented, THEN they own land and are entitled to the full rights and priviledges of ownership. If they encounter a society which does respect land ownership, understand the principle, and say "see this land where our houses and fields are? We own this land . . . we have claimed it and put it to productive use."

This is NOT what most indigenous tribes do; instead they claim the entire earth as far as they can see as "their land" simply because, on their random wanderings (which they engage in because, like animals, they are completely dependant on the vagaries of nature) they may have walked on it. This is a disintegration and a violation of the principle of "ownership" and a demonstration that they do not recognize it. In this case, people that have moved in and DO own this land are fully justified in protecting themselves against violent attempts to evict them.

Mexico had some sort of need to start a war with America? I suppose you'd say America was defending Texas. Let's see a bunch of anglos settle in Mexican territory and declare independence? I suppose if Mexicans in the southwest US became a majority and declared independence you'd support them?

This is a vicious reversal of what actually happened during that war. The Texans, on having their rights viciously violated by the Mexican government, decided to declare independence, as is the right of ANY people whose rights are violated by a government. If the U.S. chose to invervene on behalf of the rebels, she was RIGHT to do so, as a government that violates the rights of its citizens ceases to have any right to be a sovereign power.

Spain, a rump empire (holding only Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico) with an obsolete fleet just decided to attack a nation with a state of the art military?

IIRC this war was the only attempt by America at REAL imperialism and is a smudge on the national honor. The original justification was that an American ship was sunk by Spanish mines in the bay at Havana, which WOULD constitute an act of war, however I believe later it was determined to have been an accident. The attempt at imperialism, though was a miserable failure, and taught America a valuable lesson.

I do know something about Nazi propaganda, and they did justify the holocaust as a "defensive" measure.

The fact of the matter is that every aggressor in history has said their actions were "defensive". When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it was for "defensive" reasons. Hell, Alexander the Great probably claimed his conquest of Persia was purely defensive.

Note the bait-and-switch tactic used here, declaring that all acts of war are aggression and thus anyone that exhibits it is equivalent to Nazis.

[JMeganSnow]

You seem to be fixated on the idea that people commit crime when they accept bad philosophy.  I agree, but look at it this way.  If there is no bad philosophy that is advertised to people, then they can't accept it so readily. 

. . .

You can go into the underlying philosophy of choice and consequence if you want to, but that is beyond the realm of social sciences.  Social sciences must deal with what is on the surface, and if research consistently shows a correlational or causal connection between behavior and a certain social influence, then I will accept it as true.

So, your idea would be that, if no one is ever exposed to a bad idea, they will have good ideas? Ridiculous.

If your exposure metaphor holds, that the mind is like the immune system, then it is frequent exposure to BAD ideas that helps one build up an immunity to such, just as it is frequent exposure to disease that assists one in fighting same.

However, some diseases (like some ideas, when carried out) are lethal. The way to counteract this is to expose people to good ideas (medication) and bad ideas in small doses (innoculation) so they can determine for themselves what is and isn't against their survival.

Attempting to prevent "exposure" to bad ideas is simply a violation of the rights of those that produce the bad ideas, i.e. censorship.

How do you intend to deal with what is "on the surface" by ignoring what is underneath? That is like saying you can successfully deal with an iceberg if you pretend it is only as large as the part you see. The Titanic would be a demonstration of this method in action.

Knowledge is, by right, an integrated whole, not a conglomeration of disassociated facts hovering in a vacuum. If something you "learn" in one field contradicts facts in another field, then you must resolve the contradiction. The declaration that it is outside the province of your field is an active attempt at disintegration and an attack on the very BASIS of knowledge, and thus, on man's mind.

What on earth is this thread actually about, anyway? It has segued all over the place. As near as I can tell the only idea holding it together is "aggression", and, possibly, how this concept pertains to Israel.

[The Wrath]

You put a lot of words in my mouth just now. I never said that if people weren't exposed to bad ideas that they would have good ones...I said that if people weren't exposed to bad ideas, fewer people would act on them.

I never even remotely suggested censorship.

I am not ignoring what is underneath the surface. But, try and write an article about the causes of crime and, in it, talk about the stuff that has been said in this thread, and then try to get it published in a social science journal. It won't happen.

This has nothing to do with Israel...it started as an offhand comment about the conference I went to, and it just sort of grew from there.

[JMeganSnow]

You put a lot of words in my mouth just now.  I never said that if people weren't exposed to bad ideas that they would have good ones...I said that if people weren't exposed to bad ideas, fewer people would act on them. 

People are fully capable of generating their own bad ideas without exposure to anyone else's. Generating good ideas generally takes a lot more work. Thus, I tend to advocate large amounts of exposure to good ideas rather than worrying about bad ideas slipping in the cracks.

I apologize if I was putting words in your mouth; I do not think one can separate thought from action. If I think that exposure to bad ideas causes crime, I will act to reduce it. However, as I said, I don't think that's a primary or even very important issue here, or anywhere.

[EC]

JMeganSnow, thanks for mounting a defense against Punks non-sense. It annoyed me and I didn't even want to touch it accept for the remarks I made. I figured if I did I would just open up a big can of worms where I would have to keep responding to rediculous claims by him. Claims that I think have no place on this forum.