Cho Suang Hi (R.I.p>)

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Sodium, Apr 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    Anyone who is a socialist clearly does not understand human action. "Suicide" is clear bunk and a perfect example of why no-one with any sense takes sociology seriously

    This is nothing but a pile of unsubstantiated assertions but for the sake of argument lets assume theyre true and not crap. The scenario you outline could explain why someone would have feelings of disapointment and bitterness but it wouldnt explain why they would hate and blame "rich kids" for their plight. Whom is it that propogate zero sum fallacies, that contend that the rich are wealthy at the expense of the poor. Who tell people that their current circumstances are the result of the rich "oppressing" them? Yes, lefty hatemongers such as yourself.

    the feelings of persecution, the refusal to take responsibility for his situation, the excoration of the rich, the fact that his messages were steeped in revolutionary language. All these things indicate a mind which had been influenced by the leftwing ideological framework. The idea that there is no such thing as misfortune, only injustice. The idea that undesirable circumstances are always the outcome of rapacity or simple maliciousness on the part of the wealthy.

    You simply assert that american society demands greater demonstrations of masculinity than others. I see little evidence of this. If anything tolerance for what would previously be regarded as non-masculine behaviour has increased.

    Once again your assertion that american culture has celebrated violence for centuries I feel is more reflective of your hatred of america than reality. Even still it is an argument so flawed as to be rebuked even if you accept its faulty premise. How can something which stretches back centuries be accountable for a phenomena which stretches back but a few decades?

    This act of mass killing, like crime in general, first began rising in the 60's. The period in which the world view you espouse rose to prominence. When individual responsibility was replaced by collective guilt.
    test
  2. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    What part of genetic is choice?

    Individualism is the problem. Individual responsibility, individual rights, individual, individual.

    I mean, you "espouse" (I've never seen someone who claims to be anti-pompousness speak as pompously as you) individual responsibility, and you're the most anti-social person in this site. What, you're a shining example of how to stop people attacking each other?
    test
  3. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    I didnt put words in your mouth, I put my dick in there. Drink it down.
    test
  4. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    i can already see menaz' response to teq..

    "hey teq, if the spectre of big, bad liberalism is so pervasive, how come I don't hate rich people?"



    oops...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    to all reading: raise your hand if you would have supported sentencing this guy to death had he survived...

    p.s. the above can be substantiated with decades of empirical evidence from a number of disciplines. an overwhelming fear of the loss of unearned privilege that might come with widespread acceptance of liberalism and scape-goating that results does not make my assertions any less valid. now if only i gave enough of a shit to spend a couple hours citing research and looking for statistics that show I'm right, some people here might be singing a different story. unfortunately I don't. i know i know....my not giving a shit is probably, somehow, a product of the influence of leftwing ideology.
    test
  5. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    You cite individual rights as a problem and wonder why I claim you lefty bastards are all aspiring tyrants.

    Individualism is not the problem, it is what is. It is the individual that thinks, that makes decisions and performs actions. Society is but an abstraction, simply the name given to an arbitrarily defined group of people. To blame 'society' for an individuals actions is a simple confusion of cause and effect since society is just the name given to the total sum of individual actors.

    a further two points

    1. two syllable english words cannot be pompous

    2. You seem to suffer from the misconception that bastiat described so succinctly "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."(that was pompous). Individualism as a political philosophy simply means that you feel the individual should be free to live how he likes so long as he doesnt intefere with anybody elses ability to do the same. It does not, as is often claimed, mean that youre selfish or lack empathy.
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    When did I call you a leftist? When did I even attack you as one.

    You have a tendency to lump me in with others just because I think your opinion is bullshit. And someone else thinks your opinion is bullshit.

    I don't give a two shits about the LEFT OR RIGHT game.
    You and those assumptions.
    test
  7. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    You have no integrity at all. Here you are attempting to present these declines as a vindication of liberalism when liberals are bitterly opposed to the measures that did it. These crime reductions are the result of recognising that it is individuals that acts, not society, and that individuals respond to incentives and disincentives. This crime reduction has come about by increasing the cost of crime on the individuals who commit it.

    A 100 year graph would show it better but even this graph shows what im talking about pretty well in a different area. Leftists like to talk about economic determinism. Supposedly poverty causes crime and redistribution is the answer. Here on the graph we see a sharp decline of violent crime in the nineties a period in which clinton made welfare much tougher!

    Muahahahaha, I use your own graphs against you. I am invulnerable.
    test
  8. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    when did anybody say anything about blaming society? when did "blame" become synonymous with "influence"?

    again...oopsie

    study after study after study shows otherwise
    - the death penalty is no more effective than life in prison when it comes to deterrming crime
    - regardless of declining violent crime rates as a whole, the US still commits more violent crimes than most (all?) industrial or post-industrial nations...nations that do not support the death penalty
    - violent crime is the highest in the south where there are 1) a bunch of gun lovers, 2) a bunch of poor folk (economic influence is not the same as economic determinism) and 3) the more death sentences than anywhere in the country. but sure...the "culture of violence" argument is nothing but hooey

    and also in a period of economic strength unseen since the 1920's...

    care to take a stab at the nature of the relationship between crime and the economy?
    test
  9. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    are you talking to me? if so...

    forest for the treez menaz...forest for the trees...

    you seem to think there's no way that societal influences could have contributed to Cho's mass killing. you asked "Identity, how come I didn't shoot up Drake university?"

    using the same logic you could ask teq ""hey teq, if the spectre of big, bad liberalism is so pervasive, how come I don't hate rich people?"



    Teq:

    it's funny. when it comes to violent crime, there ARE no structural constraints. it's ALL about personal responsibility. individuals have unfettered agency. their social location has no influence on their thought process. their gender or class status does not contribute to their feelings about the world.

    but going to school at a liberal campus...OH MY!...this is OBVIOUSLY why he went on a shooting spree. he was bound to go postal on motherfuckers. liberal thought seeps into the brain, rendering the body that houses the brain useless...a slave to thoughts of "moral relativism" and "redistribution of wealth"

    don't blame society. don't examine the ways in which you yourself might contribute to such behavior. when in doubt...blame liberals...
    test
  10. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Umm, who complains more than anyone else about individual rights on this site? It wouldn't be Ghet would it? I suppose he's a liberal tyrant now?

    The point isn't that individual's shouldn't have rights. It's that when people are told that the only thing that matters is their individual rights, and that the only responsibility they have is to themselves... is it any wonder that people feel so isolated?

    There is no cause and effect. The "total sum of individual actors" is a complex system, i.e. it doesn't operate on simple cause and effect. All the individual parts effect each other. And so we come to the whole point of it: it's not something that can be reduced to simple cause and effect.

    Oh, it's the length of something that makes it pompous? And there was me thinking it was the intentions behind whatever the action is.

    I've seen you use that quote before, and as it has nothing to do with the conversation, it only serves as further proof that you have a block answer for any discussion that you've created for imaginary socialists.

    "People have a responsibility to each other" = "the government should enfore so and so"?

    Where do you get this stuff?

    "a political philosophy simply means that you feel the individual should be free to live how he likes so long as he doesnt intefere with anybody elses ability to do the same" is a perfect summation of my philosophy, so where's the disagreement?
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    Perhaps, you're wraped up in Ideology bullshit. However, I'm Speaking as a Individual. What I said had nothing to do with liberalism. Did he not show distaste for the wealthy? Just because I point out the obvious based on Cho's menifesto, I'm against liberals? Did I connect liberalism? NO! Are you trying to tell me that is what liberalism is about? I told you I don't play right and left games. You can play that all day long with your imaginary right wing friend. I see a mentally ill piece of shit who should have took his medication. Your such a dumb ass sometimes!

    Did you just discribe those victims as MF's? How apathetic of you.

    I blame crazy people who take their mental issues out on the world.
    Is it too much to ask that they medicate their illness so people aren't
    shot to death. For fuck sake!
    test
  12. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    um...did i miss something? nowhere in this post did I say anything about you being a liberal. nor did I say anything about absolving the shooter from responsibility.

    You can hold the individual responsible WHILE recognizing the influence society had on that individual's thoughts and actions. It's really not a tough argument.
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You actually did miss something ... to make a fucking point ... and also to answer my question. you also tried to imply i'm a right winger not a left winger, which I'm clearly not, all because I'm speaking the fucking truth here. Yes, You tried to imply many things to absolve cho of responsibility. You can't say in one breath cho is completely responsible and then try to shift the responsibility blaming it on social influence in the next. That's a Informal fallacy. Not to mention, hypocritical!

    So what you're saying is you blame liberal ideology as the social influence then?


    However, You should have the common humanity to realize as a human being that this kid was mentally ill, from the get go, and if Cho had been on his meds this would have never crossed the boundary into massive sluaghter, regardless of social influence. You're being utterly fucking redicilous. I'm trying to create a bilateral agreement, but you want Partisan politics. If you can't see that rational point you're driving an agenda!
    test
  14. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    It is very hard for me to decide whether you are dishonest or merely an idiot. You must know full well that the bulk of leftist rhetoric constantly refers to criminal acts as products of society.

    A very good illustration of the leftist conception of moral agency can be drawn from contrasting the anguished renouncements greeting the israeli's inadvertant killing of civillians with the excuses offered for the deliberate killings of israeli civillians by palestinian terrorists.

    So a graph starting in 73 refutes a claim I made about the 60's? im leaning more towards believing youre an idiot.

    [​IMG]

    Booka!

    - I at no point claimed I believed the death penalty a more effective deterrent than life impriosnment or indeed mentioned it at all. Before reaching in your grab bag of leftist tropes please make sure theyre at least relevant.

    - As I have said before it is hard to envision long term pheneomena being responsible for recent changes. As youve noted the US has been the wealthiest country in the world for nearly a century and has had a higher crime rate than far poorer nations. Not only does this statement undermine your implication that there is a mechanical relationship between poverty and crime but also leads us to ask the question: what can account for the recently declining crime rates? could it be the recent rightward turn in law and social policy in the US? undoubtedly yes.

    - The south also has the largest population of blacks in america.

    - It's revealing that, like with so many of my arguments, you fearfully opted out of even contesting my observation that the graph you presented contradicts one of the lefts key proposed solutions to crime. The current falling in crime rates also blows out a key pillar of the lefts nonsense about 'income inequality'.

    Once again youve already posted information that discredited one of your own arguments. America has had higher crime rates than countries far poorer than itself. If you had any knowledge of history at all youd know that crimes rate arent in lockstep with the economy. Just one example is that crime rates amongst blacks were much higher in the 70's than the 50's this despite the number of blacks in poverty having tumbled in those two decades.

    No-one doubts that an individuals financial situation is a factor when he decides upon commiting a crime. It is however not a cause(and despite your claims not to believe in economic determinism you have persistantly talked about the two as if a mechanical relationship exists between them.). The cause of any particular crime always rests on a single persons decision and the most effective means to influence a decision is to offer a reward for the behaviour you want(a government does this by allowing enterprise to work untrammeled by leftists irrational hatred of capitialism) and a punishment for the behaviour you want to discourage(a government does this by adopting and efficiently enforcing a robust system of law). This not just true it is a truism.
    test
  15. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669

    Who says that? As I alluded to earlier with the bastiat quote you seem to be responding to the "Greed is great fuck the poor" strawman and not the reality. Cnservatism has always emphasised the importance of community, charity and so on. It has always opposed collectivism which is something else entirely.

    I was demonstrating the inherent defects of the idea of social determinism. If I believed society was simple I would be far less opposed to attempts at micromanaging it.

    The point was that if I was intending to be pompous I wouldve used a more exotic term than espouse.

    If you dont bother to state what your stance is then I can only assume you interjected in defence of what I was criticising in what you quoted. That being specifically lydon johnson's "great society" government initiative, an initiative which did equate a fuzzy notion of "social responsibility" with government action.

    If you describe individual rights as part of the problem then why should I think you anything other than an opponent of them?
    test
  16. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    Oh dear. Identity-X has been left so flustered by the vigorous raping he has recieved that he has resorted to obvious straw man bashing. I have never claimed that individuals are impervious to influence. There would be no point of advocating anything if you legitimately believed that.
    test
  17. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    You have been raped, VIGOROUSLY.
    test
  18. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    claiming that a criminal act or that a criminal is product of society is ALSO not the same as saying an individual is free from blame. try again...

    A 35 year graph that began THREE years after the decade in which you're talking about will probably give a pretty good idea about crime rates "since the 60's" since that's what you were talking about in the first place

    *sigh* You should quit bashing social science and take some classes in the field or something. It would greatly increase both your ability to research AND your ability to understand more complex social phenomena. I'll spend 15 minutes cleaning up your mess.

    Let's see here. First...what is you chart measuring? What is meant by "number of crimes"? Is your chart showing incarceration rates since 1960? Is it measuring arrests? I mean, it looks pretty close to the following graphs, so that would be my guess...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Well shit Teq...liberalism has infected the minds of the masses and hordes of people are committing crimes and being thrown in prison. It's an epidemic! Liberalism must be stopped!

    But wait...

    [duh]let's see....VIOLENT crime rates have remained level and then decreased over the last 30+ years
    [​IMG]
    U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

    PROPERTY crime rates have decreased for 30+ years
    [​IMG]
    U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

    hell, even DRUG use has decreased among young people since the hippies started disappearing 30+ years ago...
    [​IMG]
    http://www.pride.org/images/drug use among students graph.gif [large graph...click for details)
    http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/overview2005.pdf

    hmmm...that's odd. Why might more people be getting arrested and why are so many more people being incarcerated?

    I'll let YOU connect the dots

    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/08budget/ (note the continued increases to the budget since 2002)

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    ^^^ the above 2 taken from http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/cut_cor.pdf

    with increased spending across the board (especially in enforcement) and the passage of policies like mandatory minimum sentences, 3-strikes laws, uniform sentencing guidelines, I can't IMAGINE why it seems crime is increasing. All of this while drug use was DECREASING!

    Control for changes in policy and spending and increases in crime disappear...[/duh]

    regardless, it IS one of the increases in the "cost of crime" that conservatives advocate so much. and in terms of effectiveness, it has fallen flat.

    apples and oranges. the relationship is between RELATIVE poverty and crime, within a particular system.

    you examine crime rate in ANY country in the world and the same correlation between crime and income/wealth will be present.

    alright...maybe all of the people being arrested and going to prison for drugs has led to a decrease in use? But wait...this cause and effect relationship would require drug use to decrease AFTER changes in policy began taking place.

    As you can see from the graph's above, drug use began decreasing over a DECADE before spending increases in the late 80's and 90's and 3-strikes, mandatory minimum, and uniform sentencing policies were put in place.

    There are a number of reasosn that may be responsible for decreases in, for example, drug use (even WHILE "crime rates" related to drug use increases). AIDS scares in the 80's could have led to fears about intravenous drug use. PREVENTATIVE programs like "Just Say No", DARE, and PDFA could have had an impact. All of these reasons, along with income/economy and others, contribute. None of the contributing reasons, including income/economy, are SOLELY responsible for decreases in crime.

    and???

    control for poverty anywhere in the US and crime rates among racial groups are comparable

    control for race anywhere in the US and crime rates will STILL differ along class lines

    declining rates in overall crime doesn't make the relationship between income and crime rates disappear.

    just because crime rates decrease WITHIN each income levels, does not mean crime rates do not vary BETWEEN income levels.
    test
  19. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    Because I've already mentioned once in this thread that wealth/income has to be understood in RELATIVE terms when examining its relationship with crime, there's nothing more I can do. So..

    "relative differences in economic wealth are more important than absolute levels, or that relative deprivation is more significant in determining human quality of life than absolute deprivation" (link below)

    Here's a primer:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation_theory

    Read it? Familiar with it? Understand this set of bullet points?

    * A does not have X
    * A knows of other persons that have X
    * A wants to have X
    * A believes obtaining X is realistic

    You tell me which of the four bullet points would have changed the most between the 1950's (de jure segregation and Jim Crow) and the 1970's ("freedom")? I'll give you a hint...it's not bullet's 1 through 3.

    So...do I ALSO have to connect the dots on how this relates to crime or can you figure it out?

    "determinism" is not the same as "cause", even in the "economic determinism" or Marxian senses.

    I understand this and have never claimed otherwise. It's also one of my biggest criticisms of Marx, who's analyses never considered culture as a social influence.
    test
  20. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    And when have I advocated collectivism? I've told you before that the answer to most problems is found in balance. The answer isn't in either extreme of individualism or collectivism.

    Again, it seems like we're both talking about the same thing, so what exactly is it you're arguing against?

    Teq = most pompous dude on rm.com

    lmao.. my stance has been made more than clear. Stop reaching.

    "The point isn't that individual's shouldn't have rights. It's that when people are told that the only thing that matters is their individual rights, and that the only responsibility they have is to themselves..."

    Go back and check, because I said individualism is the problem. Or more specifically, the illusion that the individual is the only important thing, which is, at least in part, reinforced by the constant attention paid to individual rights over everything else. You know I'm talking mainly about the PC Brigade et al and I know you're just as opposed to that as me.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)