Another "Isolated Incident"

[Gnomesmusher]

There's a video somewhere in the UFO thread about anomaly seeking; it applies here too. Taken as a whole, the number of violent crimes has dropped significantly in the last 20 years; by almost 50% in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Violent rhetoric is, demonstrably, not making our culture more violent. Comparing lists of anomalous behavior demonstrates precisely nothing about the whole impact of social phenomenon.

This is just idiotic and you've tried to pull this stunt in the other thread. Those statistics do not prove that violent rhetoric has no effect on overall crime statistics, it just says that overall crime is down. There are other factors for the cause of the drop in the crime rate as seen in the very same link you've posted:

While the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1980s, it has declined steeply since 1993. One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[1] Another possibility sometimes suggested is the introduction of the Three Strikes Law, which was first passed by Washington state in 1993, providing that felony offenders who committed a third offence receive life imprisonment.

What you're arguing is like saying overall accidental deaths are down, therefore drunken driving is not contributing to the death rate at all. No, you're supposed to look at the specific factors and statistics. This is just yet more dishonest crap in a whole truckload of crap from you, ArthurWilborn.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

There's a video somewhere in the UFO thread about anomaly seeking; it applies here too. Taken as a whole, the number of violent crimes has dropped significantly in the last 20 years; by almost 50% in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Violent rhetoric is, demonstrably, not making our culture more violent. Comparing lists of anomalous behavior demonstrates precisely nothing about the whole impact of social phenomenon.

This is just idiotic and you've tried to pull this stunt in the other thread. Those statistics do not prove that violent rhetoric has no effect on overall crime statistics, it just says that overall crime is down. There are other factors for the cause of the drop in the crime rate as seen in the very same link you've posted:

While the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1980s, it has declined steeply since 1993. One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[1] Another possibility sometimes suggested is the introduction of the Three Strikes Law, which was first passed by Washington state in 1993, providing that felony offenders who committed a third offence receive life imprisonment.

What you're arguing is like saying overall accidental deaths are down, therefore drunken driving is not contributing to the death rate at all. No, you're supposed to look at the specific factors and statistics. This is just yet more dishonest crap in a whole truckload of crap from you, ArthurWilborn.

Well, then your position is reduced to "violent rhetoric makes random crazy people kill"... which is still incredibly weak, as they are crazy.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Well, then your position is reduced to "violent rhetoric makes random crazy people kill"... which is still incredibly weak, as they are crazy.

Except my position isn't as overly simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be. You just love your strawman don't you?

But let's say it's as simple as that. Are you saying crazy people can't be influenced by violent rhetoric? Random crazy people who just happen to echo the same right wing rhetoric that the high profile talking heads spew on a daily basis. For example, I guess the two cases where these nut jobs were screaming about "Obama taking away their guns" were just a completely random coincidence. It had nothing to do with Glenn Beck and company spreading the same exact lie eh?

Me and others have provided dozens of links of recent trends of politically motivated violent acts and murder from the Right and all you can do is pretend it's not related to the hostile political environment. Either you're delusional or dishonest. I'm thinking both.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, then your position is reduced to "violent rhetoric makes random crazy people kill"... which is still incredibly weak, as they are crazy.

Except my position isn't as overly simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be. You just love your strawman don't you?

But let's say it's as simple as that. Are you saying crazy people can't be influenced by violent rhetoric? Random crazy people who just happen to echo the same right wing rhetoric that the high profile talking heads spew on a daily basis. For example, I guess the two cases where these nut jobs were screaming about "Obama taking away their guns" were just a completely random coincidence. It had nothing to do with Glenn Beck and company spreading the same exact lie eh?

Me and others have provided dozens of links of recent trends of politically motivated violent acts and murder from the Right and all you can do is pretend it's not related to the hostile political environment. Either you're delusional or dishonest. I'm thinking both.

There's been crazy murderers throughout human history. You have to demonstrate there's some increase in that behavior... but you can't do that, as violent crime is down. My allegation; they (or other crazies) would kill other people for other reasons, and thus the whole thing is a wash.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

There's been crazy murderers throughout human history. You have to demonstrate there's some increase in that behavior... but you can't do that, as violent crime is down. My allegation; they (or other crazies) would kill other people for other reasons, and thus the whole thing is a wash.

Why do I have to demonstrate an increase in murders when all we've been doing is pointing out the motivations for specific murders and violent behaviour? No one is arguing that the crime rate is going up because of Republicans. Again, you're trying to pull the "crime rate is down therefore there's no such thing as politically motivated crimes at all" argument.

 

[Memeticemetic]

There's been crazy murderers throughout human history. You have to demonstrate there's some increase in that behavior... but you can't do that, as violent crime is down. My allegation; they (or other crazies) would kill other people for other reasons, and thus the whole thing is a wash.

No, man. He doesn't have to demonstrate an increase in overall crazy murderers. That isn't the claim. He's claiming there is a causal relationship between violent rhetoric and and violent behavior. That would be the claim if there were thousands a day or one a decade. Your argument is a complete red herring. But from your perspective it doesn't seem to matter. The only way for a person to influence the behavior of another is direct communication immediately before an action is taken. Years of advocacy by purveyors of hatred and histrionics have no effect and bear no responsibility for the behavior of those they influence. I'm still wracking my brain to try to find a way for this position to make the slightest bit of sense without assuming that you are just advocating for people who share your political position. Which would be an idiotic thing to do and I'd like to assume you aren't an idiot.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Except my position isn't as overly simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be. You just love your strawman don't you?

But let's say it's as simple as that. Are you saying crazy people can't be influenced by violent rhetoric? Random crazy people who just happen to echo the same right wing rhetoric that the high profile talking heads spew on a daily basis. For example, I guess the two cases where these nut jobs were screaming about "Obama taking away their guns" were just a completely random coincidence. It had nothing to do with Glenn Beck and company spreading the same exact lie eh?

Me and others have provided dozens of links of recent trends of politically motivated violent acts and murder from the Right and all you can do is pretend it's not related to the hostile political environment. Either you're delusional or dishonest. I'm thinking both.

There's been crazy murderers throughout human history. You have to demonstrate there's some increase in that behavior... but you can't do that, as violent crime is down. My allegation; they (or other crazies) would kill other people for other reasons, and thus the whole thing is a wash.[/quote]

I think you just said "overall crime rates are down, therefore violent rhetoric has no influence on specific cases because crazy people will be crazy people."

:facepalm:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The only way for a person to influence the behavior of another is direct communication immediately before an action is taken. Years of advocacy by purveyors of hatred and histrionics have no effect and bear no responsibility for the behavior of those they influence. I'm still wracking my brain to try to find a way for this position to make the slightest bit of sense without assuming that you are just advocating for people who share your political position. Which would be an idiotic thing to do and I'd like to assume you aren't an idiot.

Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible fore their actions. Well, I'm sure you've heard many of the same messages for years, you've been exposed to calls for murder and violence, you've felt hate and vitriol and all the pettiness humanity has to offer. Why, then, aren't you off murdering people? Because you're an individual and you've made your own decisions what to do with that information.

I think you just said "overall crime rates are down, therefore violent rhetoric has no influence on specific cases because crazy people will be crazy people."

Crazy people are crazy and could be influenced to kill by anything. Saying violent rhetoric made them do is like blaming a staircase for a fat man's heart attack. In order to prove it's actually having a negative influence you'd have to show it's more likely then random background noise to cause violent behavior in people - but as I said, violent crime is down. :geek:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No, man. He doesn't have to demonstrate an increase in overall crazy murderers. That isn't the claim. He's claiming there is a causal relationship between violent rhetoric and and violent behavior. That would be the claim if there were thousands a day or one a decade. Your argument is a complete red herring. But from your perspective it doesn't seem to matter. The only way for a person to influence the behavior of another is direct communication immediately before an action is taken. Years of advocacy by purveyors of hatred and histrionics have no effect and bear no responsibility for the behavior of those they influence. I'm still wracking my brain to try to find a way for this position to make the slightest bit of sense without assuming that you are just advocating for people who share your political position. Which would be an idiotic thing to do and I'd like to assume you aren't an idiot.

Say for instance they change the drinking age from 21 to 18, and drunk driving accidents go up. Even if the overall trend of car accidents or car fatalities goes down because of other factors, you can still point to the drunk driving accidents going up as being caused by the lower drinking age especially if there are more young drunk drivers. You can't just wave your hands and say those people would have gotten into different accidents and since all accidents or fatalities are down you can just ignore the rise in drunk driving.

It seems pretty obvious that it is a defense of people who share most of a political philosophy. I've seen that some folks have a tendency to ignore or excuse the worst sort of behavior and attitudes as long as they have the "right" political affiliation, even when they disagree with those behaviors in principle. That means that while all Republicans aren't racists or spew violent and hateful lies about their opponents, there are way too many of them who will make excuses for that sort of thing out of party loyalty.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

No, man. He doesn't have to demonstrate an increase in overall crazy murderers.

Say for instance they change the drinking age from 21 to 18, and drunk driving accidents go up.

Wow, Joe managed to screw himself over in the first sentence. Has there been an increase in the behavior in question? Let's leave out the "crazy" angle for a moment and just limit it to politically motivated murders. Just on basic historical knowledge I've have to say no; the peak in American history was probably on either end of the Civil War, and the peak in the last fifty years would be connected to the civil rights movement. The current amount can be considered a low point. Joe's analogy fails at the most basic level.

So we have to take the inverse proposition, if the drinking age changed and accidents went down, could you pull out a score of fatality cases and claim that as evidence that the change was a mistake? Certainly not.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

So we have to take the inverse proposition, if the drinking age changed and accidents went down, could you pull out a score of fatality cases and claim that as evidence that the change was mistaken? Certainly not.

Gah. Once again, you would still need to look at specific factors and not just the overall rate of fatal accidents. You have to look at the actual rate of alcohol related accidents. You can't just point to the overall declining rate and declare that changing the drinking age was a good thing if the rate of alcohol related accidents remain unchanged or got worse. Other factors could have well influenced the overall fatality rate and not just the drinking age. Are you trying your best to ignore this fallacy? Are you going to continually to be as dishonest as a Creationist on these boards?

Also, even if alcohol related deaths go down, it will never mean that drinking and driving is a good thing. So I really don't know what you're trying to prove here anyway. Violent rhetoric will always be irresponsible.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible fore their actions. Well, I'm sure you've heard many of the same messages for years, you've been exposed to calls for murder and violence, you've felt hate and vitriol and all the pettiness humanity has to offer. Why, then, aren't you off murdering people? Because you're an individual and you've made your own decisions what to do with that information.

Correct. Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible for their actions. Luckily for me, making this statement does not contradict my position since that never was my position. We are each responsible for our own actions. We are also responsible for the effects those actions have on others. Determining the scope of the effect of these actions is often difficult, possibly even impossible. Your position seems to be that it isn't just difficult or impossible to determine the scope but that is just flat out impossible to attribute any responsibility beyond direct interaction immediately preceding an event. Your following analogy is irrelevant and won't be addressed for reasons I think that even you realize should be obvious.

I'll try this another way. I have access to your home on a nightly basis and whisper in your ear, day after day, year after year, messages of hate, violence and retribution against a real or imagined enemy. After hearing this repeated message you take action and commit an act of violence against this enemy. You are still wholly responsible for your actions regardless of my input; my involvement in no way absolves you of this responsibility. Am I blameless for my actions?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

So we have to take the inverse proposition, if the drinking age changed and accidents went down, could you pull out a score of fatality cases and claim that as evidence that the change was mistaken? Certainly not.

Gah. Once again, you would still need to look at specific factors and not just the overall rate of fatal accidents. You have to look at the actual rate of alcohol related accidents. You can't just point to the overall declining rate and declare that changing the drinking age was a good thing if the rate of alcohol related accidents remain unchanged or got worse. Other factors could have well influenced the overall fatality rate and not just the drinking age. Are you trying your best to ignore this fallacy? Are you going to continually to be as dishonest as a Creationist on these boards?

Also, even if alcohol related deaths go down, it will never mean that drinking and driving is a good thing. So I really don't know what you're trying to prove here anyway.

Once again, you've entirely missed the point. Can you demonstrate that even the limited field, politically motivated murders, has increased? Hint: you can't do it by listing individual cases.

Correct. Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible for their actions. Luckily for me, making this statement does not contradict my position since that never was my position. We are each responsible for our own actions. We are also responsible for the effects those actions have on others. Determining the scope of the effect of these actions is often difficult, possibly even impossible. Your position seems to be that it isn't just difficult or impossible to determine the scope but that is just flat out impossible to attribute any responsibility beyond direct interaction immediately preceding an event. Your following analogy is irrelevant and won't be addressed for reasons I think that even you realize should be obvious.

Influence doesn't confer responsibility, except when it does? You're contradicting yourself.

There are two standards for establishing the responsibility for the effects of actions; malice and negligence. Malice is covered by my standard; when the first party aids and abets the second party to harm the third party, there is malice and thus responsibility. Negligence implies that the first party would have a duty to the third party; either to protect them from the second party, which is nonsense as the first party has no meaningful connection to the other parties; or not to say nasty things about them, which is just silly.

I'll try this another way. I have access to your home on a nightly basis and whisper in your ear, day after day, year after year, messages of hate, violence and retribution against a real or imagined enemy. After hearing this repeated message you take action and commit an act of violence against this enemy. You are still wholly responsible for your actions regardless of my input; my involvement in no way absolves you of this responsibility. Am I blameless for my actions?

False analogy. As I said, in the case of pervasive state-run media where no other message could be heard, your position would have merit. In a closer analogy to the media situation in the US, if I invited you into my home every night to say nasty things that would be my decision and I would bear responsibility for whatever I did in connection to the nasty things you said.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

Am I blameless for my actions?

Is a puppet master responsible for the actions of the puppet? The strings are making him do said action, not the puppet master himself , right? :lol:

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Once again, you've entirely missed the point. Can you demonstrate that even the limited field, politically motivated murders, has increased? Hint: you can't do it by listing individual cases.

No, you're missing the point yet again. But I'm going to indulge you and simply point to the increase of politically motivated violent incidents since Obama took office compared to the 8 years under Bush. Before you say "Obama did it", the increase is due to the stirring up of the Right wing because some black socialist illegal kenyan President took office who wants to take away our guns and kill grandma.

I've noticed your switch from "The left is just as violent as the right!" to "Well, okay but the violence isn't really our fault there because there hasn't been an increase in violence!".

Anyway, I'm done with your nonsense for now. I can only take so much.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Am I blameless for my actions?

Is a puppet master responsible for the actions of the puppet? The strings are making him do said action, not the puppet master himself , right? :lol:

It's your position that human beings are helpless puppets, then?

Also, since gnome can't or won't, can anyone else produce evidence?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Anyway, I'm done with your nonsense for now. I can only take so much.

You're way more patient than I am. Of course, I've heard that nonsense for years and years, and it never makes sense so I tune it out pretty much immediately.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Correct. Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible for their actions. Luckily for me, making this statement does not contradict my position since that never was my position. We are each responsible for our own actions. We are also responsible for the effects those actions have on others. Determining the scope of the effect of these actions is often difficult, possibly even impossible. Your position seems to be that it isn't just difficult or impossible to determine the scope but that is just flat out impossible to attribute any responsibility beyond direct interaction immediately preceding an event.

Influence doesn't confer responsibility, except when it does? You're contradicting yourself.

No. How do you get from "Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible for their actions" to "Influence doesn't confer responsibility"? They are not equivalent statements. Really, man, there is no logical chain that you've shown to connect these two statements. Even if you show one, I will simply tell you that I didn't state or imply that connection. Stop strawmanning. It does nothing to advance you own position, it only muddies the waters. If you want to rephrase my statements for the sake of clarity, feel free to do so. Restating them to paint them in an absurd light or to avoid addressing them is dishonest and cowardly. When you do that it shows you either don't understand what I'm saying or simply don't care as long as you 'win' the argument. Fuck that.

There are two standards for establishing the responsibility for the effects of actions; malice and negligence. Malice is covered by my standard; when the first party aids and abets the second party to harm the third party, there is malice and thus responsibility. Negligence implies that the first party would have a duty to the third party; either to protect them from the second party, which is nonsense as the first party has no meaningful connection to the other parties; or not to say nasty things about them, which is just silly.

I don't disagree that these are reasonable standards to show malice or negligence. I disagree that they require direct and immediate interaction to to be a "meaningful connection", which seems to be your position. See what I did there? I said, "seems to be your position" and I said it for the sake of clarity, tentatively, to try to understand your position and point out where we disagree. That is the proper way to restate your opponent's position. Especially since you haven't corrected me, I assume this is a fair assessment. I insist you give me the same courtesy when paraphrasing me.

I'll try this another way. I have access to your home on a nightly basis and whisper in your ear, day after day, year after year, messages of hate, violence and retribution against a real or imagined enemy. After hearing this repeated message you take action and commit an act of violence against this enemy. You are still wholly responsible for your actions regardless of my input; my involvement in no way absolves you of this responsibility. Am I blameless for my actions?

False analogy. As I said, in the case of pervasive state-run media where no other message could be heard, your position would have merit. In a closer analogy to the media situation in the US, if I invited you into my home every night to say nasty things that would be my decision and I would bear responsibility for whatever I did in connection to the nasty things you said.

Wrong. My analogy does not assume that no other influences are present. Let's amend the analogy to include your invitation based on you being convinced that what I say is authoritative and accurate. Again I repeat, you are still wholly responsible for your own actions regardless of my input; my involvement in no way absolves you of this responsibility. Now: Am I blameless for my actions? We can nip any further discussion in the bud if you simply answer that final question with 'yes'. You will have demonstrated your position and I will realize that we just aren't going to agree on this one. A 'no' answer will mean we may have more to discuss.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Correct. Influencing someone is not the same thing as being responsible for their actions. Luckily for me, making this statement does not contradict my position since that never was my position. We are each responsible for our own actions. We are also responsible for the effects those actions have on others. Determining the scope of the effect of these actions is often difficult, possibly even impossible. Your position seems to be that it isn't just difficult or impossible to determine the scope but that is just flat out impossible to attribute any responsibility beyond direct interaction immediately preceding an event. Your following analogy is irrelevant and won't be addressed for reasons I think that even you realize should be obvious.

I'll try this another way. I have access to your home on a nightly basis and whisper in your ear, day after day, year after year, messages of hate, violence and retribution against a real or imagined enemy. After hearing this repeated message you take action and commit an act of violence against this enemy. You are still wholly responsible for your actions regardless of my input; my involvement in no way absolves you of this responsibility. Am I blameless for my actions?

In addition to your points, the opposing view seems to be that peer pressure, identifying with groups, and mob psychology simply don't exist. One of the things we know about people is that very often they can behave very differently in a group than they would individually, and their behavior can be heavily influenced by people in authority. Milgram famous experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment are two examples of the very real influence that authority and peer influence can have over people. So we know that when people create an environment where people feel like they have approval for their behavior and the support of people in authority, they will do horrible things that they may never have done otherwise.

If someone had been seriously injured or killed in the "prison", would the people who set up the situation have been responsible? Of fucking course! That's why they shut it down early. Someone needs to convince the far-right's media outlets to shut down their rhetoric and approval of violence before more people get hurt. That doesn't mean shutting them up, but they need to stop pretending that what they're doing is any different than someone inciting violence just because they are on TV or the radio.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Anyway, I'm done with your nonsense for now. I can only take so much.

You're way more patient than I am. Of course, I've heard that nonsense for years and years, and it never makes sense so I tune it out pretty much immediately.

It's not really patience, it's just that I'll never get used to fucktards screaming about how I don't provide evidence to counter their constant strawman.