|
Post by jonbain on May 27, 2022 17:22:51 GMT
Child-abuse / corporal punishment. A violent upbringing generally. A society that ignores such issues.
These are the top 3 issues, but also:
Blame-the-victim mentality. Psychological dissonance. Rape & sodomy. A completely worthless education system that serves only as a place for unwanted youngsters.
Increasing societal hypocrisy.
Anti-depressants? That would be like blaming headaches on headache tablets. But it could be argued that medication without any form of psychotherapy, or ineffective therapy masks the real problem.
But if you have ever been through chronic depression, you will know how much worse it is without medication.
The wrong TYPE of medication? Sure. Cannabis is a million times more effective than any pill, but if your mindset is dog-eat-dog, no medication will help much.
The worst is when you know the spliff works, then society abuses you even more, because it just wants to sell you useless drugs instead.
The "survival of the fittest" syndrome, where atheism makes
life fairly meaningless, and so there is one last chance to go down in a blaze of glory.
A society of dog-eat-dog mindset without empathy is a big part of it.
Have you been here? Or do you like to sit on the side and assume your position
is in the middle?
Neuroscience? Yes. Neuroscience is an important cause because its almost entirely quackery and that itself just adds to the dissonance.
Guns?
Trying to take the guns away in the midst of the WHO communist takeover - yeah, that could push you over the edge.
How about genetics? What a joke that is.
Like someone can look through a microscope at a fetus can figure out that will be a mass murderer decades down the line.
Actually, the belief in genetics is a more likely precipitating factor. Because that would show emotional naivety that ignores obvious behavioral conditioning.
Simple behaviorism and a few animal experiments can easily show how to make a friendly mammal into a killer.
Though that itself would be unethical and actually CAUSE the
issue its trying to resolve. So you gotta just think about it hypothetically.
'Its just insanity' - well that is called 'begging the question'.
You think you cannot ever be a killer? Then you have not been abused enough.
America has been at the forefront of many wars. Unfortunately. And their ability to win the peace saddles them with imported trauma.
Abuse can actually be 'infectious', most readily when the abuse itself is then denied.
Passive-aggression. Now THAT is a big killer.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 1, 2022 19:02:38 GMT
At the same time, we must put an end to the education and culture of violence, which affects the minds of many youngsters. Hence, there shall be a ban of video-games which call for the destruction of obstacles or opponents, cartoons, magazines, and books which glorify destructive/overwhelming heroes. But is not freedom usually attained by the use of violence? Is not the attainment of the American independence dependent on successful overwhelming of royal forces? Is not the Police Proxy Agency in question a violent institution? We are equivocating, for Force and Violence are not the same thing. Think of a surgeon who amputates legs, to save lives and with permission, and a dog who goes around stabbing the legs of rabbits.... Violence involves imposing one's detrimental will on others -- which is what makes it criminal. A criminal is, by definition, a person who forcefully submits another to his whims and wishes. [to continue}
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 1, 2022 20:07:06 GMT
At the same time, we must put an end to the education and culture of violence, which affects the minds of many youngsters. Hence, there shall be a ban of video-games which call for the destruction of obstacles or opponents, cartoons, magazines, and books which glorify destructive/overwhelming heroes. But is not freedom usually attained by the use of violence? Is not the attainment of the American independence dependent on successful overwhelming of royal forces? Is not the Police Proxy Agency in question a violent institution? We are equivocating, for Force and Violence are not the same thing. Think of a surgeon who amputates legs, to save lives and with permission, and a dog who goes around stabbing the legs of rabbits.... Violence involves imposing one's detrimental will on others -- which is what makes it criminal. A criminal is, by definition, a person who forcefully submits another to his whims and wishes. [ to continue}
I saw a statistic earlier today showing that violence in america
has been steadily decreasing for the last few decades.
Whereas the amount of violent video games has been
increasing in that same time frame.
It seems to be getting worse because we can now see much more video footage than in the past.
The difference between justified and unjustified violence
is often very difficult to decide, especially in an abstract context,
like with laws or discussions. But its a fairly well documented that the vast majority (80%) of incidents involve people that actually know each other. This does not even tabulate those that do somewhat know each other, but pretend not to as it may involve other illicit activity.
The big problem is that a legislator can make a perfectly
good law, but anybody can twist and subvert that law and make it counter-productive. So fix-all solutions very often make the problem worse.
Its about the psychology of the individual, but throwing money at psychology typically produces bad psychology.
Whenever I read about these shootings, there is often a tendency NOT to discuss the psychology of the place concerned. Most schools seem to be places to send kids that are not wanted, and the education they teach often makes matters worse.
So the most overlooked factor is the philosophy / cosmology of society. Materialist evolution teaches that the world is a dog-eat-dog place where 'survival of the fittest' has the consequence of inevitable violence. All violence is now justified in this paradigm as there are no morals in its philosophy.
Of course that can never be the whole picture, and the role of over-population is also ignored, and that is the biggest factor by far. Its only a shortage of resources that makes people desperate. Over-populating is an act of violence itself, and its also an act of war when on a large scale.
From 1918 to 1920 the German population growth doubled.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 2, 2022 15:11:55 GMT
Conclusion of the imaginary Proclamation: When it is a government that attacks civilians (whether of the same ethnicity or aliens), during the course of a self-defensive war, should the Proxy Agency operate against the government (or the President who is the executive of the war declaration)? Would the Agency be guilty of treason? Nay; it is the moral Duty of every citizen [Cf., Panaetius, Cicero, et al.] to love humans as such, wherefore, it is the duty of the citizens, by proxy, to protect the innocents. Begging the question: In an enemy country, every person is an enemy and does not deserve respect.
Final declaration: The Proxy Agency and all single proxy agents have immunity: they may not be indicted or prosecuted for their killings in the line of duty, because anyone who commits a felony forfeits his civil rights and, therefore, [Cf. Cicero vs. Verres] his citizenship to the republic. The U.S. Constitution explicitly admits that rights may be forfeited; they are not innate fixtures. The citizens of a republic assume duties and rights, which are essentially contractual; they do not exist for the subjects of a monarchy or a dictatorship. / Farewell.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 4, 2022 22:38:41 GMT
If it is the moral duty of men to love human beings, how can some humans choose to kill other humans (though criminals)? Should not criminals be protected like the innocent civilians? If they should, as they are today, even if jailed, then there is no reason to create a Proxy Agency. Ours is the best possible world and we need no president to make that kind of Proclamation. So, let's go back to sleep. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 5, 2022 20:24:56 GMT
Well-said. Indeed, some American officials have said that, unfortunately, mass mssacres in schools, and the like, must be accepted as part of a FREE SOCIETY. Some Christians used to say that God allows evils in order to show the contrast between good and evil. Great, say the victims; let the livimg celebrate the TRIUMPH OF DEATH AND OF IRRATIONALITY.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 6, 2022 16:09:40 GMT
LAW & CRIME reports [June 5, 2022] that B. H. destroyed ancient Greek ceramics at the Dallas Museum. When a guard confronted him, he explained that he did this because he was mad at his girlfriend. A guard? What for? An arrest? What for? For the State of Texas to pay for a criminal's livelihood, while he will not be able to pay millions of dollars for the damages? If there were a Proxy Guard, he might have prevented the damages to begin with by sending the criminal back to his creator (which is not a Free Society). Presently, please just hang him. lawandcrime.com/crime/manallegedly...
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 6, 2022 16:15:30 GMT
Well-said. Indeed, some American officials have said that, unfortunately, mass mssacres in schools, and the like, must be accepted as part of a FREE SOCIETY. Some Christians used to say that God allows evils in order to show the contrast between good and evil. Great, say the victims; let the livimg celebrate the TRIUMPH OF DEATH AND OF IRRATIONALITY. God allowing evil is not the same as God allowing the possibility of evil
in the choices that people freely make.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 10, 2022 19:58:07 GMT
Well-said. Indeed, some American officials have said that, unfortunately, mass mssacres in schools, and the like, must be accepted as part of a FREE SOCIETY. Some Christians used to say that God allows evils in order to show the contrast between good and evil. Great, say the victims; let the livimg celebrate the TRIUMPH OF DEATH AND OF IRRATIONALITY. God allowing evil is not the same as God allowing the possibility of evil
in the choices that people freely make.
We should go further. When there is God, there is no need to institute a Proxy Agency, a reign of terror for criminals. The New Testament shows God as the protector of his innocent son: Knowing that the king of Judea, Herod, was going to massacre the innocent newborn, he warned Joseph and Mary to take Jesus to Egypt. [It's a pity that only one infant was protected. So, we -- or parents --cannot rely on God for the protection of the innocents.]
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 10, 2022 20:36:26 GMT
LAW & CRIME reports [June 5, 2022] that B. H. destroyed ancient Greek ceramics at the Dallas Museum. When a guard confronted him, he explained that he did this because he was mad at his girlfriend. A guard? What for? An arrest? What for? For the State of Texas to pay for a criminal's livelihood, while he will not be able to pay millions of dollars for the damages? If there were a Proxy Guard, he might have prevented the damages to begin with by sending the criminal back to his creator (which is not a Free Society). Presently, please just hang him. lawandcrime.com/crime/manallegedly... Huh I made some of the custom stainless steel hand railing inside that place about 15yrs ago while I was working in custom metal fab (one of many hats I've had on in my time... As for the old clay art that got smashed, I shouldn't be surprised that the world has become so neurotic that people value old clay pottery over the life of a human being, I mean the topic is about a person that did a mask shooting after all so I guess I should expect there to be people that don't value people and things the right way browsing the form.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 11, 2022 11:08:02 GMT
God allowing evil is not the same as God allowing the possibility of evil
in the choices that people freely make.
We should go further. When there is God, there is no need to institute a Proxy Agency, a reign of terror for criminals. The New Testament shows God as the protector of his innocent son: Knowing that the king of Judea, Herod, was going to massacre the innocent newborn, he warned Joseph and Mary to take Jesus to Egypt. [It's a pity that only one infant was protected. So, we -- or parents --cannot rely on God for the protection of the innocents.]
Who are we to say which are innocent, which are not?
Culling of children is a consequence of over-population. Over-population is a consequence of rabid fornication. Their parents were for the most part, not innocent. Other children like Jesus would likely have been evacuated too.
Its a gross assumption that the young are always innocent. Its no better to assume the victims are always guilty too.
Being 'born into sin' - is to be born into such a corrupt world.
I see it as justified for sinners to die and be reborn into the world they failed to transform into a just world.
But Angels may also be born willfully into that world to attempt to rectify the problem.
The Hindu's are the pre-prototype Christians because they are the prototype Jews.
Reincarnation is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2022 12:31:24 GMT
God allowing evil is not the same as God allowing the possibility of evil
in the choices that people freely make.
We should go further. When there is God, there is no need to institute a Proxy Agency, a reign of terror for criminals. The New Testament shows God as the protector of his innocent son: Knowing that the king of Judea, Herod, was going to massacre the innocent newborn, he warned Joseph and Mary to take Jesus to Egypt. [ It's a pity that only one infant was protected. So, we -- or parents --cannot rely on God for the protection of the innocents.] Yes, indeed. I've never paid attention to this before. My personal answer is that there is no justice at all. There is no power to bring it to the existence. It's just impossible. Either justice is impossible, or evil is necessary a part. And if the evil is a part of the exstence, someone has to feel pain and suffering. Anyway, some thoughts of Thomas theory came into my mind. I'm not familiar with this theory very well, but I remember that Thomas said about a rational or thinking part of a soul that lasts even during the death. But we may assume that the infants or the innocents don't have such a part. If they don't have it, then for God it's legal to take them back... However, it doesn't seem very true.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2022 12:32:50 GMT
We should go further. When there is God, there is no need to institute a Proxy Agency, a reign of terror for criminals. The New Testament shows God as the protector of his innocent son: Knowing that the king of Judea, Herod, was going to massacre the innocent newborn, he warned Joseph and Mary to take Jesus to Egypt. [It's a pity that only one infant was protected. So, we -- or parents --cannot rely on God for the protection of the innocents.]
Who are we to say which are innocent, which are not?
Culling of children is a consequence of over-population. Over-population is a consequence of rabid fornication. Their parents were for the most part, not innocent. Other children like Jesus would likely have been evacuated too.
Its a gross assumption that the young are always innocent. Its no better to assume the victims are always guilty too.
Being 'born into sin' - is to be born into such a corrupt world.
I see it as justified for sinners to die and be reborn into the world they failed to transform into a just world.
But Angels may also be born willfully into that world to attempt to rectify the problem.
The Hindu's are the pre-prototype Christians because they are the prototype Jews.
Reincarnation is a fact. St. Augustine held the view that even the infants were not innocent. He wrote it in his very first chapter of "The Confessions".
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 11, 2022 14:42:00 GMT
Eugene, when you have a chance, look at my latest entries in LOGOLOGY, about Russian and Ukrainian. On your above remarks: Augustine was thinking and writing as a Judeo-Christian theologian: As a psalmist said, Forgive us, O Lord, for having been conceived in sin [ pleasure], but this (original) sin is inherited, therefore even infants are not innocent [without fault/sin]. However, he was not a jurisprudent and did not differentiate CRIIMINALITY [being at fault] and CULPABILITY [responsibility]. I say: Any person may objectively be at fault [done something wrong], but he is not necessarily responsible/liable.... Anyway, what I meant by an innocent person is this: John gets killed even though he did not provoke the killing (as in self-defense). So, John is an Innocent bystander; the killer is a criminal. In my discussion: There should be a police force devoted to preventing the occurrence of crimes [felonies].
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 12, 2022 8:36:44 GMT
Who are we to say which are innocent, which are not?
Culling of children is a consequence of over-population. Over-population is a consequence of rabid fornication. Their parents were for the most part, not innocent. Other children like Jesus would likely have been evacuated too.
Its a gross assumption that the young are always innocent. Its no better to assume the victims are always guilty too.
Being 'born into sin' - is to be born into such a corrupt world.
I see it as justified for sinners to die and be reborn into the world they failed to transform into a just world.
But Angels may also be born willfully into that world to attempt to rectify the problem.
The Hindu's are the pre-prototype Christians because they are the prototype Jews.
Reincarnation is a fact. St. Augustine held the view that even the infants were not innocent. He wrote it in his very first chapter of "The Confessions". even those who are not innocent are innocent
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 12, 2022 13:15:22 GMT
St. Augustine held the view that even the infants were not innocent. He wrote it in his very first chapter of "The Confessions". even those who are not innocent are innocent
By the way, quite similar thought uttered another father of Church named Origenes (or Orygenes?). He said that at the end of the world there would be apokatasthasis = 'the salvation for everyone, including demonic creatures', but he was objected to his position and put out from the pantheon of saints.
|
|