OT: Sad day for America

[jstoesz]

[quote=briansd1]

Once someone commits a violent crazy act, to preempt future violence, we should ruthlessly sweep through and elimate all that motivated it or could have influenced. I believe that Bush would agree to that.[/quote]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]But let’s say it does. Now what? Legislation to limit such speech?[/quote]

Allan,

NO ONE here is proposing any constraints on civil liberties (and I think you know that, so quit trying to steer the conversation toward Orwell.)
[/quote]

I think we just found someone…or maybe two if you count bush.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think that not understanding or being blind to what drives a persons behavior is not beneficial or an important study?

Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment and education, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive, period… more so, than say a middle class person who has basic needs met. On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think that not understanding or being blind to what drives a persons behavior is not beneficial or an important study?

Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment and education, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive, period… more so, than say a middle class person who has basic needs met. On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think that not understanding or being blind to what drives a persons behavior is not beneficial or an important study?

Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment and education, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive, period… more so, than say a middle class person who has basic needs met. On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think that not understanding or being blind to what drives a persons behavior is not beneficial or an important study?

Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment and education, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive, period… more so, than say a middle class person who has basic needs met. On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think that not understanding or being blind to what drives a persons behavior is not beneficial or an important study?

Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment and education, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive, period… more so, than say a middle class person who has basic needs met. On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real. The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.

[jstoesz]

Here is a distinction I would like to make. There is a difference between responsibility and understandability. My point is Beck and Limbaugh are in no way responsible for the actions of people who commit violent acts in the name of conservatism (not that many events fall into this class).
Just as a father who beats his son, is not culpable for a son who goes on to beat his own children. That son needs to learn to make life decent, even if he was given an indecent life. People need to move past the indecencies of their own lives, and stop making excuses for their actions. We as a society should do the same.
Now when people have crappy upbringings, I understand that they will have moral short falls. Their actions are UNDERSTANDABLE, but that in no way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator. Nor does it ensnare the people who were harmful to the perpetrator in the past.
Is this difference that I am drawing between Responsibility and Understandability clear? So when a terrorist kills in the name of Allah, his actions are sadly understandable, but he is still a bastard and should be hung from the highest tree! Because he alone is solely responsible for his actions, not his Imam! Catch my drift?

[jstoesz]

Here is a distinction I would like to make. There is a difference between responsibility and understandability. My point is Beck and Limbaugh are in no way responsible for the actions of people who commit violent acts in the name of conservatism (not that many events fall into this class).
Just as a father who beats his son, is not culpable for a son who goes on to beat his own children. That son needs to learn to make life decent, even if he was given an indecent life. People need to move past the indecencies of their own lives, and stop making excuses for their actions. We as a society should do the same.
Now when people have crappy upbringings, I understand that they will have moral short falls. Their actions are UNDERSTANDABLE, but that in no way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator. Nor does it ensnare the people who were harmful to the perpetrator in the past.
Is this difference that I am drawing between Responsibility and Understandability clear? So when a terrorist kills in the name of Allah, his actions are sadly understandable, but he is still a bastard and should be hung from the highest tree! Because he alone is solely responsible for his actions, not his Imam! Catch my drift?

[jstoesz]

Here is a distinction I would like to make. There is a difference between responsibility and understandability. My point is Beck and Limbaugh are in no way responsible for the actions of people who commit violent acts in the name of conservatism (not that many events fall into this class).
Just as a father who beats his son, is not culpable for a son who goes on to beat his own children. That son needs to learn to make life decent, even if he was given an indecent life. People need to move past the indecencies of their own lives, and stop making excuses for their actions. We as a society should do the same.
Now when people have crappy upbringings, I understand that they will have moral short falls. Their actions are UNDERSTANDABLE, but that in no way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator. Nor does it ensnare the people who were harmful to the perpetrator in the past.
Is this difference that I am drawing between Responsibility and Understandability clear? So when a terrorist kills in the name of Allah, his actions are sadly understandable, but he is still a bastard and should be hung from the highest tree! Because he alone is solely responsible for his actions, not his Imam! Catch my drift?

[jstoesz]

Here is a distinction I would like to make. There is a difference between responsibility and understandability. My point is Beck and Limbaugh are in no way responsible for the actions of people who commit violent acts in the name of conservatism (not that many events fall into this class).
Just as a father who beats his son, is not culpable for a son who goes on to beat his own children. That son needs to learn to make life decent, even if he was given an indecent life. People need to move past the indecencies of their own lives, and stop making excuses for their actions. We as a society should do the same.
Now when people have crappy upbringings, I understand that they will have moral short falls. Their actions are UNDERSTANDABLE, but that in no way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator. Nor does it ensnare the people who were harmful to the perpetrator in the past.
Is this difference that I am drawing between Responsibility and Understandability clear? So when a terrorist kills in the name of Allah, his actions are sadly understandable, but he is still a bastard and should be hung from the highest tree! Because he alone is solely responsible for his actions, not his Imam! Catch my drift?

[jstoesz]

Here is a distinction I would like to make. There is a difference between responsibility and understandability. My point is Beck and Limbaugh are in no way responsible for the actions of people who commit violent acts in the name of conservatism (not that many events fall into this class).
Just as a father who beats his son, is not culpable for a son who goes on to beat his own children. That son needs to learn to make life decent, even if he was given an indecent life. People need to move past the indecencies of their own lives, and stop making excuses for their actions. We as a society should do the same.
Now when people have crappy upbringings, I understand that they will have moral short falls. Their actions are UNDERSTANDABLE, but that in no way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator. Nor does it ensnare the people who were harmful to the perpetrator in the past.
Is this difference that I am drawing between Responsibility and Understandability clear? So when a terrorist kills in the name of Allah, his actions are sadly understandable, but he is still a bastard and should be hung from the highest tree! Because he alone is solely responsible for his actions, not his Imam! Catch my drift?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.[/quote]

Well Allan, I agree with you, to an extent, and actually our shooter does as well – regarding language to be changed to control people. Frank Luntz, Republican Strategist has perfected it. His studies show people are supremely emotional in decision making. Decades of marketing research shows this as well. Some decent online documentaries on this are “Century of Self” and “The Persuaders”.

Now, what country is the most PC in the world? It sure is not the US. Not by a long shot. It’s Germany. And I’m sure you can figure out why.

Somebody commented on how the Nazi’s could turn the public on Jews and other minorities up thread. It’s easy, mass communication coupled with demonization and dehumanization mix in a little social stress and voilà.

We spend most of our time not as individuals, but communicating with each other – we are the subjects of mass communication. This is turn effects what we “see” and “hear” in a collective sense.

Social experience shapes the details of brain psychology, the infants brain is made to fit into the culture in which it was born. Six month old’s can hear and make every sound in virtually every human language, the very physical existence of neurons to the tune of 50% are naturally forced to commit pre-programmed cell suicide to fit into the larger framework of the cultural pattern. Babies, one or two years old that see another infant hurt, or hear it crying, do not merely ape the child’s distress, they share it empathetically.

See mirror neurons:

Children cram their powers of perception into a conformist mold, connecting their attention to what others see. Perceptions become the slaves of social commands – it has been proven that children will come to accept and like food that they have disliked previously by putting them into a situation of peer pressure with other children for a period of time, as an example. Like wise, long term couples will mirror heart rate, blink speed and all sorts of mannerisms.

Words are the ultimate repository of the herd influence. What we perceive with words is influenced through generations of men, women, families, tribes, and nations – insights, value judgments, ignorance and beliefs are communicated through words. Word’s literally carry the impact of either life or death in many instances.

We are subject to use and knowledge of this understanding in an experimental petri dish called society, where all the tools of human knowledge are being used to mold us to a conformity – by those “who know what’s best for us.”

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.[/quote]

Well Allan, I agree with you, to an extent, and actually our shooter does as well – regarding language to be changed to control people. Frank Luntz, Republican Strategist has perfected it. His studies show people are supremely emotional in decision making. Decades of marketing research shows this as well. Some decent online documentaries on this are “Century of Self” and “The Persuaders”.

Now, what country is the most PC in the world? It sure is not the US. Not by a long shot. It’s Germany. And I’m sure you can figure out why.

Somebody commented on how the Nazi’s could turn the public on Jews and other minorities up thread. It’s easy, mass communication coupled with demonization and dehumanization mix in a little social stress and voilà.

We spend most of our time not as individuals, but communicating with each other – we are the subjects of mass communication. This is turn effects what we “see” and “hear” in a collective sense.

Social experience shapes the details of brain psychology, the infants brain is made to fit into the culture in which it was born. Six month old’s can hear and make every sound in virtually every human language, the very physical existence of neurons to the tune of 50% are naturally forced to commit pre-programmed cell suicide to fit into the larger framework of the cultural pattern. Babies, one or two years old that see another infant hurt, or hear it crying, do not merely ape the child’s distress, they share it empathetically.

See mirror neurons:

Children cram their powers of perception into a conformist mold, connecting their attention to what others see. Perceptions become the slaves of social commands – it has been proven that children will come to accept and like food that they have disliked previously by putting them into a situation of peer pressure with other children for a period of time, as an example. Like wise, long term couples will mirror heart rate, blink speed and all sorts of mannerisms.

Words are the ultimate repository of the herd influence. What we perceive with words is influenced through generations of men, women, families, tribes, and nations – insights, value judgments, ignorance and beliefs are communicated through words. Word’s literally carry the impact of either life or death in many instances.

We are subject to use and knowledge of this understanding in an experimental petri dish called society, where all the tools of human knowledge are being used to mold us to a conformity – by those “who know what’s best for us.”

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.[/quote]

Well Allan, I agree with you, to an extent, and actually our shooter does as well – regarding language to be changed to control people. Frank Luntz, Republican Strategist has perfected it. His studies show people are supremely emotional in decision making. Decades of marketing research shows this as well. Some decent online documentaries on this are “Century of Self” and “The Persuaders”.

Now, what country is the most PC in the world? It sure is not the US. Not by a long shot. It’s Germany. And I’m sure you can figure out why.

Somebody commented on how the Nazi’s could turn the public on Jews and other minorities up thread. It’s easy, mass communication coupled with demonization and dehumanization mix in a little social stress and voilà.

We spend most of our time not as individuals, but communicating with each other – we are the subjects of mass communication. This is turn effects what we “see” and “hear” in a collective sense.

Social experience shapes the details of brain psychology, the infants brain is made to fit into the culture in which it was born. Six month old’s can hear and make every sound in virtually every human language, the very physical existence of neurons to the tune of 50% are naturally forced to commit pre-programmed cell suicide to fit into the larger framework of the cultural pattern. Babies, one or two years old that see another infant hurt, or hear it crying, do not merely ape the child’s distress, they share it empathetically.

See mirror neurons:

Children cram their powers of perception into a conformist mold, connecting their attention to what others see. Perceptions become the slaves of social commands – it has been proven that children will come to accept and like food that they have disliked previously by putting them into a situation of peer pressure with other children for a period of time, as an example. Like wise, long term couples will mirror heart rate, blink speed and all sorts of mannerisms.

Words are the ultimate repository of the herd influence. What we perceive with words is influenced through generations of men, women, families, tribes, and nations – insights, value judgments, ignorance and beliefs are communicated through words. Word’s literally carry the impact of either life or death in many instances.

We are subject to use and knowledge of this understanding in an experimental petri dish called society, where all the tools of human knowledge are being used to mold us to a conformity – by those “who know what’s best for us.”

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.[/quote]

Well Allan, I agree with you, to an extent, and actually our shooter does as well – regarding language to be changed to control people. Frank Luntz, Republican Strategist has perfected it. His studies show people are supremely emotional in decision making. Decades of marketing research shows this as well. Some decent online documentaries on this are “Century of Self” and “The Persuaders”.

Now, what country is the most PC in the world? It sure is not the US. Not by a long shot. It’s Germany. And I’m sure you can figure out why.

Somebody commented on how the Nazi’s could turn the public on Jews and other minorities up thread. It’s easy, mass communication coupled with demonization and dehumanization mix in a little social stress and voilà.

We spend most of our time not as individuals, but communicating with each other – we are the subjects of mass communication. This is turn effects what we “see” and “hear” in a collective sense.

Social experience shapes the details of brain psychology, the infants brain is made to fit into the culture in which it was born. Six month old’s can hear and make every sound in virtually every human language, the very physical existence of neurons to the tune of 50% are naturally forced to commit pre-programmed cell suicide to fit into the larger framework of the cultural pattern. Babies, one or two years old that see another infant hurt, or hear it crying, do not merely ape the child’s distress, they share it empathetically.

See mirror neurons:

Children cram their powers of perception into a conformist mold, connecting their attention to what others see. Perceptions become the slaves of social commands – it has been proven that children will come to accept and like food that they have disliked previously by putting them into a situation of peer pressure with other children for a period of time, as an example. Like wise, long term couples will mirror heart rate, blink speed and all sorts of mannerisms.

Words are the ultimate repository of the herd influence. What we perceive with words is influenced through generations of men, women, families, tribes, and nations – insights, value judgments, ignorance and beliefs are communicated through words. Word’s literally carry the impact of either life or death in many instances.

We are subject to use and knowledge of this understanding in an experimental petri dish called society, where all the tools of human knowledge are being used to mold us to a conformity – by those “who know what’s best for us.”

[Author]

Posts