3 ms·

It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it? Aggression and violence are clearl

It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it? Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either. Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? > primary danger being to themselves The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.

CRConrad 4y ago
> Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default. That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it? > Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  > Because they aren't dangerous wild animals The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are. > In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns. Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down. > as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective. I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > 'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it. And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to. But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Seems like you're saying that wanting to live in a truly safe place - a place where you can leave your doors, cars and bikes unlocked - is the dream of a deluded authoritarian. I guess I just disagree. These places do exist, and they are rather nice.

CRConrad 4y ago

> Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default. That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it? > Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.

thegrimmest 4y ago
> Because they aren't dangerous wild animals The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are. > In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns. Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down. > as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective. I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > 'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it. And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to. But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Seems like you're saying that wanting to live in a truly safe place - a place where you can leave your doors, cars and bikes unlocked - is the dream of a deluded authoritarian. I guess I just disagree. These places do exist, and they are rather nice.