Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: Icelander]
    #18908454 - 09/29/13 07:01 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Playing semantics?  Semantics is about the meaning of words and frankly I think it demeans the victims of real violence to have that word used when I say you are a dummy poopyhead.  Not that I am doing that.  Words have meaning and I am sick and tired of PC morons trying to expand emotionally evocative words with power onto definitions they never had before.  And you are big violent meanie for arguing with me and I'm going to go cry.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18908482 - 09/29/13 07:06 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Crying is your choice.  You are an adult now. Abuse, violence etc. I got the idea so it works for me. I don't care if you call it abuse or violence. A young child emotionally abused can be every bit or more  fucked up as someone getting beaten up.  One is not demeaning the other imo.

Types[edit]



Typology of violence[2]
Violence can be divided into three broad categories according to characteristics of those committing the violent act:[2]
self-directed violence
interpersonal violence
collective violence
The nature of violent acts, on the vertical axis, can be:
physical
sexual
psychological
involving deprivation or neglect
This initial categorization differentiates between violence a person inflicts upon himself or herself, violence inflicted by another individual or by a small group of individuals, and violence inflicted by larger groups such as states, organized political groups, militia groups and terrorist organizations. These three broad categories are each divided further to reflect more specific types of violence.


so semantically "psychological violence" seems to be part of the definition.




Edited by Icelander (09/29/13 07:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: Icelander]
    #18908553 - 09/29/13 07:21 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:


so semantically "psychological violence" seems to be part of the definition.







Only if you are a drooling PC moron.  Was that violent of me to say?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18908602 - 09/29/13 07:30 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

You are ignoring the dictionary definition to suit your argument and ignore my examples of emotional violence towards children.  Yet you claim semantics is important to you? 

Just because your one statement may not be violent towards and adult, (although it could well be against a child) hardly proves your position.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18908667 - 09/29/13 07:47 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)


http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/violence
Legal Dictionary
VIOLENCE. The abuse of force. Theorie des Lois Criminelles, 32. That force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Merl. h. t, 2. In cases of robbery, in order to convict the accused, it is requisite to prove that the act was done with violence;but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits.


This seems to say that violence does not have to be actually physical but can be psychological.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Edited by Icelander (09/29/13 07:49 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge]
    #18910400 - 09/30/13 08:40 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I don't think you know what the word means.  You have your viewpoint and aren't the least bit interested in educating yourself.  You are dogmatic.  You have created your own dogma.



I am interested in having debates based on good faith where both participants fully write down their arguments but in a reasonable length or else we're both prone to misunderstandings. You may recommend me to read a book but cannot claim I am dogmatic if I don't, this is dogma in itself. Nor will I direct you to a YouTube video as my argument unless it presents a short clip of white on black evidence and the same goes for documents on the World Wide Web. I expect you to understand this for the sake of both parts.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

liquidlounge said:
What questions?

My two questions in this post.

You didn't watch the video, as far as I know you didn't read the article and I'm doubly sure you will never read the book.  You don't care to learn.  Dogma.  You are the same as the Creationists.



The answer to this question, "Doesn't most violent century simply mean total amount of violence or victims of war per century?" is, obviously, "no".  If there are 6 million people on the planet and 3 million die violently that is far more violent than if there are 6 billion people on the planet and 12 million die violently.  Duh.



Do I have to bring in the dictionary again?

Quote:

liquidlounge said:
Most:

1.
a. Greatest in number: won the most votes.
b. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
2. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins.
n.
1. The greatest amount or degree: She has the most to gain.
2. Slang The greatest, best, or most exciting. Used with the: That party was the most!
pron.
1. In or to the highest degree or extent. Used with many adjectives and adverbs to form the superlative degree: most honest; most impatiently.
2. Very: a most impressive piece of writing.
3. Informal Almost: Most everyone agrees.

Violent:

1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack.
2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms at intense.
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a violent death.
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

Century:

1. Abbr. C. or c. or cent.
a. A period of 100 years.
b. Each of the successive periods of 100 years before or since the advent of the Christian era.
2.
a. A unit of the Roman army originally consisting of 100 men.
b. One of the 193 electoral divisions of the Roman people.
3. A group of 100 things.


Using one of the major dictionaries online:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
I don't think other major dictionaries vary much in these rather basic and general definitions.



Maybe this model is easier to grasp:

MOST = Greatest in number/amount
VIOLENT = Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force
CENTURY = A period of 100 years.

Greatest amount resulting from great force in a period of 100 years = Most Violent Century

Doesn't most violent century simply mean total amount of violence or victims of war per century?


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge]
    #18910988 - 09/30/13 11:54 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Is calling somebody a mean name violence, like Icelander says?  How would you be able to tell how that was in any century?  The stats available pertain to actual physical violence, not calling somebody a stupid poopy head like Icelander asserts.  Like that skeletons found buried long ago showed a lot more signs of violent death than is present now.

I do not know what the most violent century is.  I said that already.  I also pointed out that if you were interested in an answer you could READ THE BOOK.  But I don't think you're all that interested to learn.  You just want to spout false nonsense.  Do you know why it seems we are getting more violent?  Firstly there are people trying to redefine violence so as to include calling somebody a stupid poopyhead.  You do not seem to be using it in that sense and it would be impossible to ascertain in any case from century to century.  Let's you and me just settle on discussing physical violence.  Secondly it is because we have much greater knowledge of the bad shit that happens now because of global media.  It creates a false impression that things are worse today than they were before media.  Pinker has done the research.  It is there for you to mine.  You do not seem to care all that much.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18911021 - 09/30/13 12:03 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Do you agree there has been more victims of violence IN TOTAL regardless of whether it's physical or psychological this century than any other century? Ignore the concept of 'per capita'.


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18911035 - 09/30/13 12:06 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Is calling somebody a mean name violence, like Icelander says?

Yes it can be in the case of verbal child abuse. Also the dictionary seems to agree that there is such a thing as psychological violence. Even a legal dictionary.  You may like to define terms according to your needs or omit portions of dictionary definitions but it doesn't change the facts.  Violence is more than just physical according to the dictionary. It can have psychological components as in the case of child abuse as I stated and you ignored.

All I have "asserted" is in agreement of what the dictionary claims to be a valid definition.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge]
    #18911127 - 09/30/13 12:32 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

liquidlounge said:
Do you agree there has been more victims of violence IN TOTAL regardless of whether it's physical or psychological this century than any other century? Ignore the concept of 'per capita'.




This century?  No.  This century is only 13 years old.  The last hundred years?  Probably.  The population has quadrupled since 1900.  Why would you ignore the concept of per capita?  That's ridiculous.  By your criteria if everybody alive in AD 1 was murdered it would be less violent (physically, who knows how many people got called a stupid poopyhead then)) than if 0.3% of the population suffers from violence in 2010.  :flowstone:  Per capita is the only way to measure it.  Likelihood of dying a violent death.  Likelihood.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18911147 - 09/30/13 12:37 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Per capita is the only way that makes sense imo. 

Compared to the past this probably could be called the peaceable kingdom.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18911185 - 09/30/13 12:48 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

This century?  No.  This century is only 13 years old. 

My bad, I mixed up and should obviously have written the past century.

The last hundred years?  Probably.  The population has quadrupled since 1900.

There's no probability, it's a fact - at least physical violence. And it backs up my question:

Most violent century in human history?

If we answer in the most literate and correct way.

Why would you ignore the concept of per capita?  That's ridiculous.

We have never debated 'per capita' but what the most violent century in human history was. Unless you define words the way you want to and not literally based on major/legal dictionaries.

By your criteria if everybody alive in AD 1 was murdered it would be less violent (physically, who knows how many people got called a stupid poopyhead then)) than if 0.3% of the population suffers from violence in 2010.  :flowstone:  Per capita is the only way to measure it.  Likelihood of dying a violent death.  Likelihood.

Certainly, if our starting point was 'per capita'. It was not, our correspondence began with:

What is the most violent century in human history?

Based on every dictionary out there this means the total amount of victims of violence per century.


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Edited by liquidlounge (09/30/13 12:48 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge]
    #18911195 - 09/30/13 12:50 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Technically I guess you have a case.  I seriously doubt however that was the intent of the OP.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge]
    #18911219 - 09/30/13 01:00 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Actually the thread started out with a video of Steven pinker discussing the decline of violence in modern times.  The video that you did not watch.  Nor did you bother to read the article, which was all about per capita and not absolute number.

You also wrote this

Quote:

liquidlounge said:
violence is almost always sad

Yet you laugh it off with silliness, unless you honestly believe in past-life's.

but that doesn't change the fact that it the amount of violence as a percentage of the population has decreased. anecdotes don't change that fact.

In total per capita for the past century you may be right but please provide quality source and what periods you have in mind.

I think you're wrong if we base this on specific war-times in the past century. 4-5% of human population on earth was killed during WW2, Mao did his fair share, WW1 as well, Second Sino-Japanese War. There has been so many ultra-violent wars in the past century I doubt you will find the same violence of large scale in previous centuries, even per capita.

There's no doubt the past century is the most violent in history looking at the total victims of war regardless of capita. It's literally the most violent period in human history.



You just about doubled the percent for WW2 but that's OK.  You brought in per capita when you used percent.
As to another point, WW2 was 70 years ago.  That is not today.  Mao is not today and Stalin is not today.  They are the past, not the present.  By far most of the people alive then are dead now, certainly all of the leaders.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: Icelander]
    #18911228 - 09/30/13 01:01 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
Technically I guess you have a case.  I seriously doubt however that was the intent of the OP.



It most certainly was not.  Everybody alive today is less likely to suffer from violence than at any other time in human history.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: Icelander]
    #18911254 - 09/30/13 01:10 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
I seriously doubt however that was the intent of the OP.



But there is room for switching lanes in the very same subject so long as everyone pays attention of course. Unfortunately zappa did not although he answered the question and thereby created a debate out of it. This is what I have been trying to explain on the last two pages.  Is it just me or the lack of awareness in my surroundings...?


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18911288 - 09/30/13 01:21 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Actually the thread started out with a video of Steven pinker discussing the decline of violence in modern times.  The video that you did not watch.  Nor did you bother to read the article, which was all about per capita and not absolute number.

What the thread began with is irrelevant in regards to our correspondence and my question directed towards you which you answered.

You just about doubled the percent for WW2 but that's OK.  You brought in per capita when you used percent.

That was another metric, as you hopefully understand now, I used three different metrics in which the following is what I have based our debate on:

Quote:

liquidlounge said:
There's no doubt the past century is the most violent in history looking at the total victims of war regardless of capita. It's literally the most violent period in human history.



As to another point, WW2 was 70 years ago.  That is not today.  Mao is not today and Stalin is not today.  They are the past, not the present.  By far most of the people alive then are dead now, certainly all of the leaders.

We're debating the past century , or the past 100 years contra other centuries - are we not?


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 15 hours
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge] * 1
    #18911384 - 09/30/13 01:46 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Anyone who failed to watch the video is being intentionally ignorant is and doesn't deserve to participate in this discussion


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleliquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: morrowasted]
    #18911488 - 09/30/13 02:15 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

morrowasted said:
Anyone who failed to watch the video is being intentionally ignorant is and doesn't deserve to participate in this discussion



Oh, so if I want to debate in a thread on Christianity, I must have read The Bible?


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 15 hours
Re: Ted Talks: The surprising decline in violence. [Re: liquidlounge]
    #18911517 - 09/30/13 02:24 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

liquidlounge said:
Quote:

morrowasted said:
Anyone who failed to watch the video is being intentionally ignorant is and doesn't deserve to participate in this discussion



Oh, so if I want to debate in a thread on Christianity, I must have read The Bible?



If you want to debate with me, yes. I take things seriously, and that means researching them. I have read the Bible and the Qur'an and I feel that having done so increases my capacity to debate the religions they spawned significantly. Watching this video does not take very much time compared to reading a book.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Shroomalicious 11,178 107 05/03/10 01:26 AM
by Withinity
* violence or non-violence that is the question... Anonymous 1,160 12 02/14/03 12:18 AM
by Anonymous
* Sex, Violence and the search for Intimacy NiamhNyx 1,138 9 01/30/04 12:56 AM
by NiamhNyx
* So Much Violence
( 1 2 all )
Kiafi 3,117 22 11/10/03 02:05 PM
by Ped
* the need for violence spewed 4th 981 6 11/08/02 11:08 PM
by Zero7a1
* are "ethics" worth talking about?
( 1 2 all )
Malachi 5,106 39 08/22/03 01:08 PM
by Rhizoid
* Violence is the answer ncshroomer 2,858 18 01/30/02 06:40 PM
by bigwill
* Violence against Males Swami 1,609 11 11/01/02 10:34 PM
by chodamunky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,907 topic views. 2 members, 8 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.