> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Eric Boyd
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 2:34 PM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: "We will fight to defend the honor of our rocks!"
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes:
> <<
> Many children of non-violent people also grow up to be violent. How to
> act violent may be learned, but the violence is already there
> genetically.
> >>
>
> I am having trouble understanding what this means. Sure, the capacity
> for violence is there already (genetically, *physically*), but are you
> also arguing that there is a genetic predisposition to solving
> problems with violence? How in world would one test for that?
UTism is common already, and there is no point in the history of ANY humans that is not filled with violence. I am not only suggesting that we have a propensity for violence, but that it is almost always the first physical response. We acn now posture and use violence more descretely, but it is still there.
>
> <<
> My argument here is that not all problems of this nature have a
> "solution". That in many cases violent people can only be handled
> (read "contained") with violence.
> >>
>
> With coercion, I would accept... violence (as in physically hurting
> them) should never be required -- mere constraint is enough.
Constraint often requires a "blow" of some kind. Its violent, but aimed at constraint as the goal. I agree that just beating someone is awful, but it would deter behaviour in future in the right circumstances. For instance, a black man in a all white texas town may be "beaten" to keep him out of the gtood side of town. It is very bad I agree, but this violence will deter future action and will look like "punishment" to the aggressors.
I dont mean to state that I am in favor of violence, I state only that like everything else, your worldview is going to be the determining factor in success, not the results.
>
> <<
> As for sometimes causing damage, certainly it can and does. There also
> comes a time when the damage being caused by the abherent individual
> is less preferable to the damage caused to the perpretator by forceful
> action. An example would be a 2 or 3 year old who climbs up to a 2nd
> story roof and is playing there. A painful smack on the ass will
> prevent in many cases a reoccurance (as it did with me) - and the
> result is certainly better than the damage that would be done had such
> a child fallen.
> >>
>
> Yes, but the same effect can be had by simply being more careful --
> putting the child in a play pen, or fencing off the roof; and then
> later rationally discussing the dangers of unguarded changes of
> elevation (cliffs, etc.). I fail to see how (as the hope must be) if
> the pain of a sore bottom can be linked to playing in a high place,
> one could not more simply demonstrate the danger of high places to the
> child. i.e. if the child has sufficient cognative abilities to
> understand that the sore bottom was for playing in a high place, they
> also have sufficient abilities to understand much less drastic and
> coercive communications.
It worked greeat for me, I associated the danger quite nicely and it is one of my first current memories. I had just graduated from the "pen" and snuck outside where I built a ladder of boxes and stuff in the side yard (so I am told). At the time I associated my bottom pain, with wrong doing, and the only wrongdoing that I was spanked for were things of this nature. When I was 5 or so, no more spanking as the psychological factors you mention here started to kick in. I dont have ANY negative feelings about my parents or upbringing, so I am sure that properly applied, a very healthy family relationships can result from this type of discipline.
>
> <<
> Then you have the opposite extreme. In Iraq for example, we had no
> real choice but to respond violently. Our diplomatic positions were
> simply so opposed as to make violent response, even knowing that it
> would not be final at the time, preferable to continuation of dialog.
> Coerision and violence were the only "reasonable" options. It could be
> argued but not proven that a more violent more aggressive stance in
> this type of situation could have prevented our current tit - for -
> tat exchange.
> >>
>
> On the other hand, I think a much more open stance could have solved
> the entire problem -- what would have happened if the US had become
> very open; wanted to help Iraq acheive it's goals, whatever they might
> be? Instead of an inqusition and bombing, we potentially could have
> had an alliance. It's hard to stay enemies with someone who wants to
> help you acheive your goals...
We know and knew Iraqs goals at the time. Their goals included gassing and killing civilians. How could we have been more open? What could we have done to help them while keeping them from killing the innocent?
> (if the US moves out of viewing the situations as "Us vs Them", then
> Them would have a hard time maintaining the conflict)
I would like to see us NOT think in the Us vs Them mode, but thusfar this is not a realistic goal. Just think of the implications of trying to make such a deep rooted psychological change in 250 million people. It is not going to happen - so we need work on a gradual improvement that has a possibility of success.
At the time it happened, I marched against the war. I was wrong - way off base. I dont think there was any opportunity to solve things with diplomacy as I used to think. I am now of the opinion, and have been leaning more so that way, that anyone who targets civilians for elimination has to face the music. Standing idly by while others are systematically slaughtered is the same as committing the crime ourselves. In Rawanda we watched, In Bosnia we watched. No more watching - time to take offensive against gross violators of human rights.
> <<
> > "Coercion often will produce very compliant obedient children in
> > situations where they know they will be coerced if they defy their
> > parents in some way. Such compliant obedient children are not
> > wonderful children -- they are damaged children. This is not a great
> > goal to have for our children."
> > -- Janet Reiland <MomReil@AOL.COM>, on the TCS mailing list
>
> Are you sure the child was TCS? TCS is not the same as laisse-faire,
> or non-coercive parenting, or attachment parenting, all of which have
> very large pitfalls. Anyway, TCS children should never cry -- crying
> is an indication of coercion (i.e. the child is in a coercive state of
> mind, enacting one theory while another, conflicting theory, is
> active). As to "being unpleasant to be around", that is again
> anti-TCS -- they are probably coercing those around them, rather than
> seeking mutual preference solutions to their problems.
I believe the child is TCS, but I could be wrong. All the things you are saying here is what the problems were though - there seems to be no internal sense of discipline. The technique may be misapplied in this case, or I could just be wrong - Ill ask at the next convenient meeting.
> One small question, too -- if you were in fact "taking risks without
> comprehension", then on what grounds can your parents punish you? Is
> it not much more rational for them to explain to you the dangers so
> that next time you'll know?
I think you are overestimating the "grasp" of very young children or very dogmatic people. I dont think young children in general understand the concepts of death and suffering, and I dont think telling them will help. They do understand pain though - and pain is not necessarily a bad thing - although it can be used that way.
Bill Roh