Rams Off-Topic Thread-All issues Welcome

[Retroram52]

Caynine, you won't find many correlations between generalized population research findings and what you personally do as a basis for some of your points. However, there is a significant body of research published including a landmark study in 2011 published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that stated that a child's aggressive behaviors (both boys and girls I believe) can significantly increase with the viewing of just one, one-hour violent t.v. program, movie, or vid game. It further concluded that when children with existing clinical personality disorders viewed aggressive or violent programming (aforementioned), those children would exhibit aggressive or violent behaviors acted upon their peers to a several fold increase.

The conclusions included that children are highly affected by what they view and when it becomes a consistent diet, those children are way more likely to grow up to be adults who exhibit the same aggressive and violent behaviors on their adult peers. The bevy of studies supporting these conclusions is extensive.

Furthermore Caynine, if you are going to use this argument as justification for not posting the Ten Commandments in a school: I do agree with Shopson that the idea of posting the 10 Commandments in public schools is a bad idea, if only for the obvious fact that kids of varying religions attend public schools. Religion is far too subjective to be a legislative force.
then I would not a book like Catcher in the Rye to be mandatory reading and I have a moral obligation to not read it (which is on many schools mandatory reading lists) because of its subjectivity that promotes a dismissal of authority and a promotion of do-anything-if-it-feels-good-mentality.

The notion that most subjects are O.K. and should be taught in schools but a religion is not because of subjectivity is baseless in my opinion because education is supposed to be about developing minds to think not isolate them through a significant suppression of ideas. Now does that mean we go to the extreme and allow everything to be available? Of course not because then we would be back to the results of the study I posted above and its ramifications on human behavior both developmentally and long-term.

 

[Rambunctious]

right on buddy!!!

Hey Brother Zeke. Happy Humpday! Oh wait it's Thursday where you are. Yeah I'll have a headache tomorrow lol

 

[Rambunctious]

The notion that most subjects are O.K. to be taught in schools but a religion is not based on subjectivity is baseless

 

[Caynine29]

[/B][/SIZE]

OK, lets address the statements you made and I emboldened one at a time Caynine. First, it won't happen in our lifetime. Uh huh. Just like nobody could ever imagine homosexual marriage 40 years ago or so. Along those lines I'll bet nobody believes marrying an animal will ever become a possibility in the US either. Remember, it is legal in other countries.
The 10 Commandments are pretty much universal across all religions except Catholic, which has removed one and split another regarding the Sabbath to still total to 10. The common thread across all Christian denominations is they all preach Christ as their leader, along with his commands and is universally recognized as a religion of love, something I think we can all agree on that this world needs more of.
Pop culture's influence is a scapegoat? OK, Caynine. You're right, and all the psychology books I ever read in college were wrong. Damn, now I have to go back and tell my professor that everything he's teaching is wrong and there is a blogger on the Rams site that has set me straight. You did have one thing right though. You said I THINK, which is the operative word here, and expresses an opinion. Please, come to the table with facts for a change instead of conjecture and opinion. The FACT is that your environment and what you are exposed to does dramatically have an impact on shaping your personality. You may not believe it, and you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but make no mistake, that's all it is---your opinion. I didn't keep my books from college so I can't give you a book title or author, but I'm sure our highly educated moderator Retro can back me up and give you multiple references.
Yes, there are always going to be psychopaths in every environment that much is true. Even the Amish community have had their heinous crimes. But they are the exception, not the rule. What can we conclude from this pray tell?
As far as the killers not knowing what they are doing is wrong? Again, where exactly do you get your information from? Because it is obvious to me that it isn't from any kind of education in this particular field. Many of these people know perfectly well what is right and wrong, but they are so narcissistic and self-absorbed that they simply don't have the capacity for sympathy or empathy. They are driven by pure selfishness.

Your condescending tone aside... nothing I say here should be taken as an absolute. I use terms like "I think", or "I believe" because they are indeed my opinion. No need to get all in a huff because my opinion doesn't jive with yours.

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. Comparing it's potential elimination to an equality issue is apples and oranges.

The basic moral premise of the Ten Commandments are universal across all religions. I think we're in agreement that they include very good societal guidelines to live by. So, how about a compromise? How about we post them in public schools under the condition that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th be omitted? That way, children of all religions can learn how to act (which is what we're going for here, right?), without having to compromise their individual religious beliefs.

Violence and homicide have been around a long time. They pre-date modern entertainment. I have no doubt that violent content in entertainment has at least some effect on people. All I'm saying is that it's not what makes people go out and kill. But certainly not enough of an effect on the normally adjusted people to jump on the moral high ground and banning it. By the way, the last two sentences of your response just backed my opinion on that one. Thanks.

 

[Caynine29]

I can dig that, Retro. Like I've said before, I don't think violent entertainment doesn't play some sort of role in the shaping of young minds. But, you said it yourself... "It further concluded that when children with existing clinical personality disorders viewed aggressive or violent programming (aforementioned), those children would exhibit aggressive or violent behaviors acted upon their peers to a several fold increase." these are the proverbial "bad eggs". These are the ones we really need to watch out for. Also, there's plenty of studies out there that suggest that violent video games and movies have little to no affect on that sort of thing, as well. I'm just seeing both sides here.

You'll have to see my response to BOSS for my views on the whole Commandments thing. But, yes... I do believe that religion is too subjective to be making/enforcing any legislation. Christianity, for example, can't even decide amongs themselves which of their offshoots is "the one true church". Could you imagine the enormous cluster-f*ck it would be, putting them all in the same room to try to write a law?? Lol. And apparently our forefathers agreed.

"Patriots like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were profoundly skeptical about the claims of what they called "revealed religion." As children of the 18th-century Enlightenment, they stressed reason and scientific observation as a means of discovering the nature of "Providence," the power that had created the world. Jefferson, for example, took a pair of scissors to the Christian New Testament and cut out every passage that suggested a divine origin and mission for Jesus. In their long correspondence, Jefferson and John Adams swapped frequent witticisms about the presumption of the clergy. ("Every Species of these Christians would persecute Deists," Adams wrote on June 25, 1813, "as soon as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unbalanced power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, Human Nature!") As president, Adams signed (and the U.S. Senate approved) the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, which reassured that Muslim nation that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

"James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law of the new nation. "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions," he wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, "may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution conspicuously omits any reference to God."

Now, I'm not saying that Christianity, or ANY religion is bad for our country. They all just need to mind their own.

 

[Retroram52]

I agree with your premises Caynine. No worries. These sentences though may require a bit more scrutiny.

All I'm saying is that it's not what makes people go out and kill. But certainly not enough of an effect on the normally adjusted people to jump on the moral high ground and banning it.

Eh, I am sorry Caynine but the developmental mileu in children that ensues with a steady diet of watching violence and aggressive behavior from a number of sources including their crazy and violent parents is a major contributing factor that leads people to commit aggressive and violence as adults. if a pathological progression is not inhibited. That much is evident in Allan Schores volumnious work at UCLA.

However you raise a significant and interesting conjuction in your second sentence with the notion of normally adjusted people to commit these acts . This argument has a sort of chicken and egg element to it and it goes something like this.

If children can increase their aggressive behavior just by watching one violent program and they do that consistently over time, the chances are very good they are not going to arrive in adulthood normally adjusted.

There is usually a pathological development progression that occurs with children that suffer and are expose to traumatic events and a consistent diet of aggressive and violent programming early in life. From a clinical definition, it includes:Oppositional-defiant disorder followed by Conduct disorder, then full-blown antisocial personality disorder as a young adult. Each step gets worse in behavioral manifestations if no intervention of treatment is applied.

If a child receives treatment, a stabilized family system with a father and mother, and predictable structure especially with boys, the chances are good that a normal adjustment can occur and the normally adjusted descriptor and your assertion definitely applies.

So, yea, what kids see and what they experience at home and their immediate environments are a heavy predictor of their likelihood of becoming felonious if they don't receive an intervention to stem the tide of destruction.

 

[Retroram52]

Yea you have some valid points in your follow-up post. Very good stuff Caynine.

 

[BOSS429Mustang]

Call it what you will Caynine, but I notice so often you post with such articulate words and flowery sentences, all the while trying to pass off opinion as fact. Not being condescending or in a huff, but I am being sarcastic to point out so often on these boards rhetoric is confused with reality.

 

[Vitamike]

How about we post them in public schools under the condition that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th be omitted?That way, children of all religions can learn how to act (which is what we're going for here, right?), without having to compromise their individual religious beliefs.

I've always marveled at the structural order of the 10 commandments and then how Jesus summarized them later...“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' And 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" This clearly teaches Christians to put GOD first and how to relate to GOD (1-4) then to one another (5-10). Now under a non-denomination aspect, omitting the intent of the first four would fail to teach the accountability aspect that relates to 5 through 10 don't you think?

Honestly, I think this is a state issue and using the 1st Amendment to rule 'the law of the land' is wrong. Leave the separation issues of religion and state (Since there are no absolutes) to the states to define them themselves as the framers intended. Just keep any one denomination away from rule by legislation. That, by the way, was their fear and what was being discussed in your copy and paste section of your post Caynine.

Now, I'm not saying that Christianity, or ANY religion is bad for our country. They all just need to mind their own.

I can actually go with this however the Irreligion crowd needs to do the same and that's not happening because under the separation of religion and state they kind of have a unique angle, don't they?

This angle of Irreligion is identified in part by some of the lyrics in the song 'Freewill' by Rush. (Ironically, sort of the Irreglion's anthem song) The part in bold, demonstrates the unfair advantage in this struggle between Religions and Irreligions people...

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill


[YOUTUBE]eVinZHV-0XY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Caynine29]

Yea you have some valid points in your follow-up post. Very good stuff Caynine.

Thank you, Retro. When I say "scapegoat" I mean that a lot of people are quick to say that eliminating violent influences from kids is the absolute solution. When, in fact, the vast majority of children are able to process that sort of thing without a problem. But, to say "Oh they're just fine. Let 'em play." would be wildly irresponsible. As you've pointed out, there's obviously some correlation there.

Now, if I had children, would I want them seeing these sort of things? Well... no. There's an appropriate age for everything. I have a young godson who used to visit regularly with my best friend (his father) and he always wanted to play my PlayStation when he was here. Back then, he was around 8 to 10 years old. I actually had a separate set of video games he was allowed to play. Some of my favorites... "Grand Theft Auto", "Battlefield 3", "Metal Gear Solid", were locked away in my bedroom, while others like "Gran Turismo 5" and "Burnout" (the racing kind... not the drug kind. Lol) and "Ratchet and Clank" were all available for his enjoyment. Personally, I think he could handle the violent ones... but why take the chance? Why thrust him into that sort of thing at such a young age?

If people are letting the boob tube raise their children, the danger does become significantly greater. You're absolutely right... there's certainly something to be said for letting a child hold on to their innocence a little longer in this day and age.

 

[Caynine29]

I've always marveled at the structural order of the 10 commandments and then how Jesus summarized them later...“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' And 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" This clearly teaches Christians to put GOD first and how to relate to GOD (1-4) then to one another (5-10). Now under a non-denomination aspect, omitting the intent of the first four would fail to teach the accountability aspect that relates to 5 through 10 don't you think?

No, it wouldn't... and for the very reason you just stated. "This clearly teaches Christians to put God first and how to relate to God. " People of other religions, or who are non-denominational aren't held accountable by the Judeo-Christian God of the 10 Commandments. They're not going to put God first, regardless. Once you mention "God", you're immediately excluding them.

Honestly, I think this is a state issue and using the 1st Amendment to rule 'the law of the land' is wrong. Leave the separation issues of religion and state (Since there are no absolutes) to the states to define them themselves as the framers intended. Just keep any one denomination away from rule by legislation. That, by the way, was their fear and what was being discussed in your copy and paste section of your post Caynine.

Yes. That was pretty much my point. That along with the fact that religious legislation would just never work because which religion's rules trump the other?

I can actually go with this however the Irreligion crowd needs to do the same and that's not happening because under the separation of religion and state they kind of have a unique angle, don't they?

This angle of Irreligion is identified in part by some of the lyrics in the song 'Freewill' by Rush. (Ironically, sort of the Irreglion's anthem song) The part in bold, demonstrates the unfair advantage in this struggle between Religions and Irreligions people...

What's the unique angle you're talking about?

I could be misunderstanding your point on the Rush lyrics... but whether you're religious or not, we all have free will. What's the unfair advantage to either group?

 

[Caynine29]

Call it what you will Caynine, but I notice so often you post with such articulate words and flowery sentences, all the while trying to pass off opinion as fact. Not being condescending or in a huff, but I am being sarcastic to point out so often on these boards rhetoric is confused with reality.

I've argued my opinions... but I've never tried to pass opinions off as fact.

What does the fact that I'm articulate have to do with anything? I always assumed that was a good thing. Retroram is very articulate. But, I don't have any problem that when he disagrees with me. It only serves to get his point across clearer.

 

[Caynine29]

Honestly, BOSS... I think we're just having a bit of a misunderstanding here. I may use fact to back up an opinion. But, my opinion is and always will be just that... my opinion. For example, my stance on the Church and State debate...

FACT: There are many, many different religions and even more denominations of those religions in the United States.

MY OPINION: The fact that there are so many of them, with so many different beliefs, leads me to the opinion that religion cannot be a sound base from which to write legislation for an entire country of people who don't share one particular belief.

 

[Retroram52]

Honestly, BOSS... I think we're just having a bit of a misunderstanding here. I may use fact to back up an opinion. But, my opinion is and always will be just that... my opinion. For example, my stance on the Church and State debate...

FACT: There are many, many different religions and even more denominations of those religions in the United States.

MY OPINION: The fact that there are so many of them, with so many different beliefs, leads me to the opinion that religion cannot be a sound base from which to write legislation for an entire country of people who don't share one particular belief.

Caynine: Using this reasoning I have quoted here from you about religion, could I then interpret that you are aware of many drugs that interface the human condition in life but because there are so many, that would not be a reason to regulate them all?

 

[BOSS429Mustang]

No problem with you being articulate at all Caynine. Usually shows a higher level of education and intelligence. My problem is when people try to "bluff" their statements as some kind of "all knowing and the rest of you don't" type when in fact it is only an opinion. Crap like that is always going to be called to the mat sooner or later by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. And I'm not pointing you out in particular. Sometimes things don't come across these boards very accurately or as intended and I think we can all agree that that is a fact. And we all say things innocently enough with no malice intended yet that get misconstrued.


I do tend to get rather aggressive in my posts and I readily admit that. An attitude that comes from an upbringing in a rough environment. So I hear it not just here but with friends and family as well. And I apologize if I offended. Ideally we're all friends here with a common interest in the Rams.


Volatile topics are inevitable, especially on an "Off-Topic Thread" Some of us tend to get more passionate in our debate style than others. Please don't take it personally. I don't know you personally and you don't know me so there is no real animosity intended---just heated disagreement.

 

[Retroram52]

Heated disagreement is good because it indicates you care deeply about something and there is admirable activity between the ears, not just brainstem activity which I'll explain sometime elsewhere.

Common sense will tell you when you go past that to what we all know is the wrong approach is when I'll mention a few things of restraint. But everyone here on the Rams pages knows this and I am indeed preaching to the choir here.

 

[BOSS429Mustang]

Honestly, BOSS... I think we're just having a bit of a misunderstanding here. I may use fact to back up an opinion. But, my opinion is and always will be just that... my opinion. For example, my stance on the Church and State debate...

FACT: There are many, many different religions and even more denominations of those religions in the United States.

MY OPINION: The fact that there are so many of them, with so many different beliefs, leads me to the opinion that religion cannot be a sound base from which to write legislation for an entire country of people who don't share one particular belief.

OK, but all Christian religions have more than a few things in common. Christ is the focus of every Christian religion. If the religion is proclaiming that it is Christian, and doesn't have Christ as the highest priority/Focus, then it is not really a Christian religion.

So with that idea in mind, we can work with the many common beliefs that we all have in common. This country is quickly getting away from what we were founded on---Freedom of religion. We are trying to take religion out of everything. I really don't understand why it's OK for the Muslims to do something and people say, "Oh, that's their culture and religious beliefs", but if Christians do something, everybody is in an uproar because it's trying to force religion on us. As I've stated many times before, it's PC and media spin. That is my opinion of course. Some things can't be definitively proven, but the logic would dictate you follow the breadcrumbs......

 

[Caynine29]

Caynine: Using this reasoning I have quoted here from you about religion, could I then interpret that you are aware of many drugs that interface the human condition in life but because there are so many, that would not be a reason to regulate them all?

You're talking about the regulation OF something... not BY something.

Using drugs as an example, though... I don't think you'd want to live in a country where a lifesaving antibiotic was "illegal" for you to have, solely because it went against someone else's religion. Right?

 

[Vitamike]

No, it wouldn't... and for the very reason you just stated. "This clearly teaches Christians to put God first and how to relate to God. " People of other religions, or who are non-denominational aren't held accountable by the Judeo-Christian God of the 10 Commandments. They're not going to put God first, regardless. Once you mention "God", you're immediately excluding them.

I purposefully outlined Christians and non denominations to distinguish a difference in response to this comment of yours.

The basic moral premise of the Ten Commandments are universal across all religions. I think we're in agreement that they include very good societal guidelines to live by. So, how about a compromise? How about we post them in public schools under the condition that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th be omitted? That way, children of all religions can learn how to act (which is what we're going for here, right?), without having to compromise their individual religious beliefs.

I brought up Christians to demonstrate how they view the teachings and then how your compromise doesn't work unless the 'intent' of the first four for children of all religions was included, to me the accountability aspect. You suggested a compromise which 'children of all religions can learn how to act (which is what we're going for here, right?), without having to compromise their individual religious beliefs.' With that, I do understand that it doesn't address the Irreligious folks.

What's the unique angle you're talking about?

It's unique because the Irreligious beliefs are excluded from separation by the Establishment Clause imposed under of the First Amendment.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could be misunderstanding your point on the Rush lyrics... but whether you're religious or not, we all have free will. What's the unfair advantage to either group?

The part I put in bold points to the fact they still have made a choice just like religious people however are free to promote their beliefs unopposed.

I guess what I am really saying is this concept you've described as the law of the land regarding 'Separation of the Church and State' needs to be expanded to 'Separation of Religious or Irreligious beliefs and State'.

Only then will will we be on equal footing.

 

[Retroram52]

Yea that analogy was a bit ragged but I think you grasp the point. The regulation of drugs is to provide safety for people to assure they get the drugs that can help and prevent access to those that harm.

With the 10 commandments, that is precisely the point. You do not want to inhibit exposure to the 10 commandments solely because it goes against someone else's religion. You want the exchange of ideas. If you take a religion and philosphy major in college, the whole point is to develop critical thinking skills that compare the 10 commandments to say the Koran or the tenants of Hinduism. Simply banning them because someone is miffed and hiding a mythical interpretation of the separtion of church and state is akin to living in a country where you are banning an efficacious biological agent because it offends someone's religion.

Moreover, I don't define Christianity as a religion because I utilize the definition of religion and the definition of Christianity to characterize the Spiritual activity and purpose of both. Just an FYI.