Generation Chickenhawk: With The College Republicans

Wow I did not know I was dealing with a former Psych minor.
I better step off.


Anyway, Sigmund how does your psychology minor from 10 years ago account for the high degree of terrorist acts localized to certain regions? And please don't respond with a bunch of huffiness about how you're not a racist. That's irrelevant and I don't care if you are a racist or not. Just answer the question.

 

It is my understanding of developmental psychology that formation of values and morality is universally understood to occur between puberty and adulthood.

See Erik Erikson and William Damon.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

if this dudes an expert in psychology because he had a psych minor, then ALL of you need to bow down to my BA degree in government!!! Now all my opinions on politics are superior to yours!!!!

 

Never claimed to be an expert. I merely stated what I understood from things that I had read and then invited other cites which may differ in opinion.

 

Which is more than the ZERO you continue to offer up.

Well, Nimrod, you have answered your own question by incorporating what I said in previous posts. You just asked about terrorist acts LOCALIZED TO CERTAIN REGIONS. I previously stated that trauma can result in acts outside your normal values in direct response (ie where you are located).

The original premise is that we are creating more terrorists. The "war on terror" (whatever that means...how do you fight an ism anyway?) is against terror on a global scale. This encompasses the explosions in the UK and 9/11, etc. The plotting of worldwide acts of terror is NOT what you were just talking about. You don't create that, you merely give a cause to a propensity which was there already in these individuals. There are scores of people in Iraq and elsewhere that do not have this propensity. It is a mixed bag. Just like we have religious nutballs here (ie bombing abortion clinics, etc) they have religios nutballs there (al-Qeada).

 

i think you have to slowly but surely peck away at it. for example, we do a pretty good job of fighting smartism in this country.

 

It's unfortunate perhaps, but I tend to be very direct and unapologetic for my arguments. I'm much more affected by counter-arguments here than anyone would expect.

Remember when somebody posted that link to that online test to see which Star Trek character you were most like? I was Data; he was a robot I think! I think I have the character name right; I'm not much of a Star Trek fan.

Much of my actuality is more moderate than I let on in my posts, but if we all agree on everything to the same extent there's nothing to discuss...

 

My point has always been whether it be communism, terrorism, or any other ism...you cannot fight a belief set with bullets. You have to find other ways to effect long term, positive change.

To try to use force with an ism only strengthens their resolve and gives a cause to the already existing violent or deleterious nature of the ism at hand.

 

that's fine and i agree. however, and i just skimmed through this thread, the reason you were being attacked is that you were making a distinction as to whom could or could not be affected by isms. IMO, anyone can be, or are you above all that?

 

Yawn, yes I figured a crafty Psych minor like you were going to try to save yourself with some semantic hook about the phrase "creating". Quite honestly I don't care if you call it creating/contributing, enabling. It's totally irrelevant to me, though of course very important to your BBS pride in this thread. Ultimately though, it makes no difference. To wit, let's say I have HIV. Lets' say I had unprotected sex with you. Let's say you get sick with HIV.

Now, I suppose if we apply your rigid definition, neither you nor I can say we 'created" your HIV. We didn't synthesize the virus. But we made it a hell of a lot more likely for you to get it. And ultimately that's what I'm concerned with.

The big problem with your response is that you are taking a minor, isolated theory of individual psychology, generated in some very specific study or studies (and probably cast into doubt by other studies or theories) and wrenching it out of context, and then superimposing it over a vast array of social, economic, and historical phenomenon.

Then you varnish it up with some tedious dogmatic variation of the nature vs. nurture debate and use it as a nice all-purpose theory of everything which has the capcity to absolve you of your guilt and divorce yourself from the consequences of your actions.

A clever bit.... well actually not. Maybe you should have gone for the Major and not the minor.

 

I can agree to that..

 

I disagree. That's really stupid.


Now pardon me while I go take a nap.

 

Then that makes you part of the unpleasantness here. Hope you wake up in a better mood.

 

Then why in the hell did you pipe up with this we're creating terrorists BS? You pipe up with the same old tired crap about how we are creating this problem, and now all of a sudden you don't care. Now it's my turn to yawn.

You are assuming that I take this BBS as something dear to my personal life or self esteem. This is a bad assumption on your part.

And...as expected...you provided NOTHING. I invited an opposing theory, but predictably, none was forthcoming. Unless you want to count ad hominem personal attacks as a countertheory.

 

Wow, what an angry bitter response. As for the substance, I take this for an concession that semantics is your angle.

YOu know why you chose to respond like that? Anxiety over the loss of the maternal nipple - it happens to all of us. I learned it in Intro to Psych for non--concentrators.

 

It would seem clear to me that terrorists can be created, just as good people can be created. Mostly as a result of taught or witnessed acts in childhood. Though I'm sure, and personal experience, lends me to believe, that opinions and value systems can change drastically in adulthood as well.

All that said, Sam, I don't understand why you just don't cite something?

 

No...you chose the original words. Now you try to back off from them.

What maternal nipple are you talking about? You are not making sense and are saying things just in an attempt to be inflammatory.

I also note the continued lack of a response to my repeated efforts to obtain a cite...any cite to a theory that refutes what I am saying. I have stated time and again that I am more than willing to be proven wrong. Instead of proof, you respond with increasingly nasty attacks.

 

Oh, you've got that right.



D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.