> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Eric Boyd
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 10:52 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: "We will fight to defend the honor of our rocks!"
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes:
> <<
>
> Oh yes, They certainly can. I think Eric is using an innacurate model
> of humanity. This assumption that mankind is not primarily violent in
> nature would not be very realistic.
> >>
>
> I didn't say we wern't violent in nature -- I said that violence is a
> learned strategy for problem solving. As evidence of the memetic
> nature of <violence as a problem solver>, I would cite the studies
> which show that children of violent parents grow up to be violent
> themselves...
>
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. A good refrence for this is (and I dont know of anyone here who has looked at it yet) _Demonic Males: Apes and the origins of violence_ Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson. This book is pretty convincing in its search for reasons of human violence.
> <<
> Punishment and pain are primitive but functional teaching tools,
> though I would not use pain myself, punishment has its uses. When
> applied properly, its called dicipline, and it works for everything
> from withholding allowance for not completeing chores, to fines of
> corporations. They are not fullproof, and often ill conceived from the
> beginning, but it still stands when effectivly applied.
> >>
>
> Depending on what you mean by "works", I may have to disagree.
> Violence (coercion) rarely solves the actual problem -- more
> typically, it simply suppresses the problem, as well as generating
> resent and coercion damage in the form of irrationality and the loss
> of creativity.
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. (certainly not all, and I dont want to imply that violent response should be anything but a last resort). 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. 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 conjtinuation 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.
(people who use coercion to solve their problems end
> up thinking of coercion as the only possible solution after a while,
> which is both an entrentched theory and inhibits creativity).
I think this is an easy course to follow, and you are correct that it has its dangers - no arguument here.
> "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
I agree to a point, coersion used as the primary tool is horrid. But experience tells me that there is a proper place and time for coersion and punishment that can achieve goals in a more timely and effective manner. I am fortunate enough to see a real life comparison of a TCS raised child next to a child being raised as I was (my niece). There is no comparison - the TCS child is a whining, crying, spoiled child, unpleasant for everyone to be around and generally falling behind the other child. Now certainly some of this has to do with general disposition, but not all of it. I was spanked as a child. I was spanked ONLY when I was very young and took risks with my life without comprehension. My life has been a veritable "heaven" on earth as far as I am concerned. Most of my pain comes from dealing with people who are depressed or have problems themselves. I've always been happy, creative and loved exploring the universe around me.
Bill Roh