Antisocial behaviour

Sigard

Hi everyone.

I'm covering antisocial behaviour as part of my final year project and was wondering if I could get some peoples opinions on the subject matter.


So the question is; What do you consider to be antisocial behaviour?


Thanks in advance

K4t

Sigard wrote: »

So the question is; What do you consider to be antisocial behaviour?

Ans = The behaviour of Irish Bank executives.

What do I get?

Mingey

Sigard wrote: »

Hi everyone.

I'm covering antisocial behaviour as part of my final year project and was wondering if I could get some peoples opinions on the subject matter.


So the question is; What do you consider to be antisocial behaviour?


Thanks in advance

Read some articles on Deviance and go from there.

ChocolateSauce

It is behaviour which inflicts distress on others.

Ostrom

Try Howard Becker's Outsiders

Sigard

thanks for the replies so far lads. however, I'm looking for peoples' opinions, as well as useful links, so feel free to throw down any feelings you have on the subject.

The Corinthian

Anti-social behaviour is any behaviour that goes against those norms of society that allow it to function. Whenever you put a group of humans together, you need to set rules so that their co-habitation can function.

Religions tend to be the first port of call on this, as they are the great grand-daddies of morality (which is essentially what these rules are). Typically, these rules will tend to start by covering protection of life and property (and underlining the authority of the religion). So any behaviour that goes against these would tend to be anti-social (murder, violence, theft, vandalism, etc.) because of the parallel development of morality and civilization.

Most people don't break these rules (conscience), although there is enough evidence that they will bend them and will break them if they are told by a 'higher power' that it is ok to do so. Where conscience comes from is a topic for debate.

If you are discussing people with ASPD, then they don't have the same personalty inhibitors towards anti-social behaviour. Of course, they're more complex than that, but that's another discussion, and I don't know if this is what you're looking for.

Popinjay

Might be no harm to include the definition of ASB from the Criminal Justice Act 2006 either.

Criminal Justice Act 2006 wrote:

A person behaves in an anti-social manner if the person causes, or in the circumstances, is likely to cause to one or more persons who are not of the same household as the person (a) harassment, (b) significant or persistent alarm, distress, fear or intimidation, or (c) significant or persistent impairment of their use or enjoyment of their property.

Sigard

thanks again everyone. keep the comments coming

Handsome Bob

I define anti-social behaviour strictly within the parameters of terrorising another human being to the point where that person cannot function normally in their everyday lives. It could be bullying in the workplace, children bullying their peers, or gangs terrorising either their community (or other communities) as a whole or targeting specific people within that community.

kerry4sam

Their is some good info here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/children-and-young-offenders/anti-social-behaviour-by-children

... It goes from What Is --> Behaviour Contract --> Offences relating to Behaviour Order.

If you wanted the views from Emergency Services personnel you could post a thread in the ES Forum...They are honestly really helpful over there in answering queries/questions

synd

The widly accepted concept of anti-social behaviour is in my opinion an idea stemming from a false understanding of (social stability) - society is never in stability it is in constant turbulance.

The term anti-social is dripping with ideology, in that the accepted definition only refers to specific forms of anti-social behaviour and more frequently applies to those of lower economic status (noteably those that are not conductive to buisness interests).

For instance, an employer who fires a pregnant worker for not turning into work isnt considered anti-social he's considered ''efficient''. A studant attempting to articulate an opposing perspective in face of a teacher is (beligirant, anti-social, disrespectful).

Personally I consider the presupposed double standard the highest form of (anti-social behaviour) :cool:

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

The widly accepted concept of anti-social behaviour is in my opinion an idea stemming from a false understanding of (social stability) - society is never in stability it is in constant turbulance.

Not really. That society is in constant change is nothing new. However, there is turbulance and there is chaos - that is where there are no common points of moral reference and each can act as they please.

The term anti-social is dripping with ideology, in that the accepted definition only refers to specific forms of anti-social behaviour and more frequently applies to those of lower economic status (noteably those that are not conductive to buisness interests).

Naturally morality will always become saturated with ideology, the more complex it becomes, as society is 'molded' towards one vision of Utopia or another. However, at it's core the rules tend to be on the same theme, designed as a basic framework for a community.

Personally I consider the presupposed double standard the highest form of (anti-social behaviour) :cool:

But all ideologies create such double standards, even the ones that claim to be egalitarian - often especially those.

synd

Not really. That society is in constant change is nothing new. However, there is turbulence and there is chaos - that is where there are no common points of moral reference and each can act as they please.

I noticed that you ignored my comment - ie society is never in stability it is in constant turbulence (I never mentioned the word chaos). Opposing idealogical groups are in consistent conflict, if you want to define the human condition as being stable in order to score a terminological brownie point - thereby obscuring the substance of the conversation, then fine.

Personally I only accept the assertion that there are various degrees of turbulence - we label the less turbulent conditions (stable) - one could reasonably contend that stability and turbulence are a false dichotomy.

Either way, the reality of ideological social struggle remains the same :cool:

Naturally morality will always become saturated with ideology,

Ideology being a system of valuation is the basis of morality - as in meta.

the more complex it becomes, as society is 'molded' towards one vision of Utopia or another. However, at it's core the rules tend to be on the same theme, designed as a basic framework for a community.

True

But all ideologies create such double standards, even the ones that claim to be egalitarian - often especially those.

Incorrect - if a self proposed egalitarian ideology entails double standards, then its not an egalitarian ideology by force of definition. For instance if advocates of an egalitarian ideology manage themselves in a hierarchical fashion the fault is not with the ideology rather the ''so called'' proponents.

Inegalitarian ideologies generally advocate double standards in-themselves.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

I noticed that you ignored my comment - ie society is never in stability it is in constant turbulence (I never mentioned the word chaos).

I didn't ignore your comment, I qualified it. Of course society is ever changing and evolving, but there is a difference between gradual change and chaos.

Ideology being a system of valuation is the basis of morality - as in meta.

No. Ideology is much more than simply morality. Morailty is a codification of right and wrong, of social rules. Ideology and religion (which is essentially theological ideology) go far beyond this and will attempt to construct entire belief structures around morality.

Incorrect - if a self proposed egalitarian ideology entails double standards, then its not an egalitarian ideology by force of definition.

That is the irony, the paradox, of egalitarian ideologies. The problem with pretty much all egalitarian ideologies is that they will often define what is egalitarian in a manner that others would see as anything but.

All of this is interesting, of course, but not exactly on topic.

synd

I didn't ignore your comment, I qualified it. Of course society is ever changing and evolving, but there is a difference between gradual change and chaos.

Theres a difference between gradual change and chaos - please, no need make such obvious statements in order to divert attention from the topic. :rolleyes:

Social struggle manifests itself in many forms, even riots are (by degrees) organized. Transition from one system of social organization to another is not chaotic - its organized conflict between opposing interests.

You'd be hard pressed to find much chaotic activity in the human dimension.

No. Ideology is much more than simply morality. Morailty is a codification of right and wrong, of social rules. Ideology and religion (which is essentially theological ideology) go far beyond this and will attempt to construct entire belief structures around morality.

Do you understand English ? Or are you deliberately trying strawman my position ? I never said ideology = morality, I asserted that ideology is the basis of morality.

That is the irony, the paradox, of egalitarian ideologies. The problem with pretty much all egalitarian ideologies is that they will often define what is egalitarian in a manner that others would see as anything but.

No, its not a paradox. An egalitarian ideology must be egalitarian. supposing advocates of the ideology act contrary to their philosophy then the substance of the philosophy remains the same. If your going to take issue with an ideology then focus on the actual theory as opposed to the actions of proclaimed advocates.

Most egalitarian ideologies make no claim to (absolute equality) - rather advocate a greater degree of equality than exists under the current mode of organization.

All of this is interesting, of course, but not exactly on topic.

The nature of social conflict underlies everything, much of what is regarded as (anti-social) behaviour is merely action opposing the ideology of those who rule society.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

Theres a difference between slow change and fast change - please, no need make such obvious statements in order to divert attention from the topic. :rolleyes:

Divert attention from the topic? How?

Social struggle manifests itself in many forms, even riots are (by degrees) organized. Transition from one system of social organization to another is not chaotic - its organized conflict between opposing interests.

I thought history being nothing but class struggle went out a good while back.

Do you understand English ? Or are you deliberately trying strawman my position ? I never said ideology = morality, I asserted that ideology is the basis of morality.

It would appear that you don't understand English as I actually disagreed and stated the opposite relationship.

No, its not a paradox. An egalitarian ideology must be egalitarian.

And as I said, that depends on how you define egalitarianism. For example meritocracy is an egalitarian system, but can result in inequities. Of course one could curb those inequities, but that too would effectively go against egalitarian principles.

Most egalitarian ideologies make no claim to (absolute equality) - rather advocate a greater degree of equality than exists under the current mode of organization.

Sure.

The nature of social conflict underlies everything, much of what is regarded as (anti-social) behaviour is merely action opposing the ideology of those who rule society.

That would be a nice theory, but it would not explain murder, rape, or many other crimes.

Not everything it tied into revolutionary ideology

Denerick

Anti social behaviour is any behaviour by a vocal minority which damages the quality of life of the decent majority. For example, Dublin teens stabbing innocent passers by on lonely street corners...

synd

I thought history being nothing but class struggle went out a good while back.

A variation of argumentum ad populam ?

It would appear that you don't understand English as I actually disagreed and stated the opposite relationship.

I don't see the point arguing over the exact definitions considering the amount of them that exist.

And as I said, that depends on how you define egalitarianism. For example meritocracy is an egalitarian system, but can result in inequities. Of course one could curb those inequities, but that too would effectively go against egalitarian principles.

If your going to assert that the concept of egalitarianism is relative to the individual in order to obscure my point then I would pose that the concept of all words is relative - in which case there’s no point of having a conversation. The fact that you understand what Im typing implies that you’v accepted the predominant social definitions. You can define oligarchy egalitarian if you like but youl be on your own - (bar the oligarchs) who you can impress with your diversionary rhetoric.

Sure.

Yea sure

That would be a nice theory, but it would not explain murder, rape, or many other crimes.

Not everything can be explained - however a sociological understanding can explain alot, crime has various causes if you understand the way society is organized you can understand the structural roots of the problem. Why are crime rates high in low-income neighborhoods ? lack of employment, material deprivation, social/occupational alienation ect.

Hierarchical organization and social power disparities alienate people and make them feel imposed upon - they then attempt to excel outside of mainstream society - sub cultures ect.

The structure that produces the problems is what needs to be focused on - as opposed to the problems themselves.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

Not everything can be explained - however a sociological understanding can explain alot, crime has various causes if you understand the way society is organized you can understand the structural roots of the problem.

It's an interesting slant, but a tangential one. Certainly behaviour that is anti-social only because it challenges 'accepted' ideology should be included in our definition, but I do think you're putting too much emphasis on it.

Why are crime rates high in low-income neighborhoods ? lack of employment, material deprivation, social/occupational alienation ect.

Correlation does not imply causation.

synd

It's an interesting slant, but a tangential one. Certainly behaviour that is anti-social only because it challenges 'accepted' ideology should be included in our definition, but I do think you're putting too much emphasis on it.

The initial point was that, the term (anti social) predominantly applies to one type of behavior and more specificly to one group of people.

Other activities that could reasonably be regarded (anti social) are often not considered such due to the fact the powerful monopolize the way language is used.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Causation has been established - the causes of anti social behaviour are well documented.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

The initial point was that, the term (anti social) predominantly applies to one type of behavior and more specificly to one group of people.

Except it doesn't predominantly apply to one type of behaviour or more specifically to one group of people.

Other activities that could reasonably be regarded (anti social) are often not considered such due to the fact the powerful monopolize the way language is used.

I believe your definition of 'reasonably' might be a little different to mine there. Of course that may be down to my monopolized vocabulary.

Causation has been established - the causes of anti social behaviour are well documented.

It's not been established, it's been theorised upon. I'm afraid there's no consensus on the nature versus nurture debate as yet - unless you adhere to an ideology that has decided to fall on one side of the fence or the other, that is.
_______________________________________

Loxosceles

Antisocial behaviour is the willful destruction of personal or shared property and the willful menacing of another person's right to free public movement.

For example, anyone doing damage to a publicly used item such as a school area or public thruway, to home and car, or standing where you need to walk through, and harrassing and/or assaulting you.

The fact is, teenagers who do not work and who spend their time socialising should be either in school or socialising in an appropriate venue, because if they stand around in packs in public areas like play parks or shopping centres they will inevitably try to unfairly harm or verbally humiliate a freely moving person who is not doing them any harm, especially if alcohol is involved. Teenagers might think that controlling this is unfair but they should be spending their time in school and if they're out with friends, they need to stay out of public sight in a place where they are under supervision such as in a home with parents present. Unless and until there is a way to make them stop menacing and abusing free-moving adults, this is a necessity.

If teenagers want to go somewhere like a public area out of the way of a shopping area, (like a scenic overlook where all the cars can park) then they should be able to go with a curfew involved so they can be with their own age group and not bothering adults, and with a regular cruise by cop cars to make sure there's no fighting or alcohol. They do have to go *somewhere* don't they. If cops here were a little more menacing, teenagers would make a greater effort to stay out of the way and refrain from harrassing adults, which they do here with impunity and which I despise. I had plenty of freedom as a teenager (far more than they do here, actually) to be with my friends away from adults, but never far from supervision by authorities.

Personally, I'm glad we had public parks, my friends' houses or some guy's cornfield to go and hang out. I'll admit I had a far cooler teenagerhood as an American than most Irish kids do here, with fretting mothers and paranoid authorities and no abandoned property to hang out on that was far enough away from 'housing estates', and no big public parks and no skate parks and no big, comfy, run-down, alcohol-free coffee shops that are essentially homework halls where you can gossip.

I'm really glad that I got to be an American teenager. Teenagers here are mean and nasty by comparison, to be honest. The more ASBOS they get the more they hate you because they have nowhere to go.

synd

Except it doesn't predominantly apply to one type of behaviour or more specifically to one group of people.

Im afraid in everyday usage it does, the term itself is non bias however its definitive qualities depend on subjective perspective. Iv found various adjectives, ''what's'' anti-social is relative - therefore the predominantly accepted cultural definition of activities that qualify as (anti social) will be largely determined by those who govern society. :cool:

I believe your definition of 'reasonably' might be a little different to mine there. Of course that may be down to my monopolized vocabulary.

Society is comprised of opposing interest groups - one conception of what qualifies as anti-social may rest in opposition to another.The term remains the same but the definitive qualities are largely subjective.

One group may consider the collective expropriation of private property (anti social) - An opposing group may regard preservation of private property a form of structural oppression therefore (anti-social).

It's not been established, it's been theorised upon. I'm afraid there's no consensus on the nature versus nurture debate as yet - unless you adhere to an ideology that has decided to fall on one side of the fence or the other, that is.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - Plenty has been established through socialogical study ie. crime and drug use are largely caused by unemployment, lack of infastructure, education ect.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

Im afraid in everyday usage it does, the term itself is non bias however its definitive qualities depend on subjective perspective. Iv found various adjectives, ''what's'' anti-social is relative - therefore the predominantly accepted cultural definition of activities that qualify as (anti social) will be largely determined by those who govern society. :cool:

That's a very clever way of saying "in my opinion".

Society is comprised of opposing interest groups - one conception of what qualifies as anti-social may rest in opposition to another.The term remains the same but the definitive qualities are largely subjective.

Except society generally agrees upon the bulk of what is anti-social.

Of course, there will always be detractors, like NAMBA, if that's what you mean.

One group may consider the collective expropriation of private property (anti social) - An opposing group may regard preservation of private property a form of structural oppression therefore (anti-social).

The only two groups who, in recent history at least, expouse the collective expropriation of private property tend to be well meaning ideologues and opportunistic ideologues (especially when they 'represent' said collective). Outside of a few very small communities (tribal and communes) property ownership has been pretty much the standard in all civilization, and any attempt to eliminate it in larger communities has failed to date (or at least the community has).

In fairness, it's a nice idea in theory, but protection of property tends to be one of the most basic of laws that you get in civilization. But that would be the whole nature versus nurture debate again, that you believe settled.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - Plenty has been established through socialogical study ie. crime and drug use are largely caused by unemployment, lack of infastructure, education ect.

There's certainly strong evidence that certain factors are correlated and are even contributory factors, but given they occur outside of those factors, you cannot simply claim they are the cause. Bit simplistic.

______________________

synd

Except society generally agrees upon the bulk of what is anti-social.

Completely disagree (unless you want to reduce the topic to little things like pushing over old ladies). In fact society is generally split on the larger issues - millitary policy, social organization ect. Half a nation might consider a conquest a genocide (anti-social), the other might consider it rightious and productive given it spreads a given conception of freedom etc.

The only two groups who, in recent history at least, expouse the collective expropriation of private property tend to be well meaning ideologues and opportunistic ideologues (especially when they 'represent' said collective). Outside of a few very small communities (tribal and communes) property ownership has been pretty much the standard in all civilization, and any attempt to eliminate it in larger communities has failed to date (or at least the community has).

Your equating nationaization with collectivization, there two very different things.Collectivisation is widespread within the developed world and functions quite well, be it dispersed. Historicly there has been large scale collectivization both rural and urban which proved quite successful. Contrary to the assertion that these communities somehow (failed) due to internal issues - the reality is that they where crushed by force, largely (because) of how successful they where.

In fairness, it's a nice idea in theory, but protection of property tends to be one of the most basic of laws that you get in civilization. But that would be the whole nature versus nurture debate again, that you believe settled.

Slavery once occupied a central prosition within social organization that dosent imply social necessity. You might argue that a certain institution is conductive to the social benifit however (which) social benifit ? Slavery was certainly benificial to cotton barrons - however it was hardly benificial to slaves. Likewise the degree to which property can be desribed as benificial depends on the relationship given groups of people have with it.

People once considered slavery a (basic law of civilization) inherent to the human condition ect. Not only could your argument could be used to defend slavery - (It was used to defend slavery). Naturally those who govern any given system of social organization must advance the myth that the basic tenants are unchangeable/natural in order to preserve the power structure.

There's certainly strong evidence that certain factors are correlated and are even contributory factors, but given they occur outside of those factors, you cannot simply claim they are the cause. Bit simplistic.

A cause is nothing more than an emalgimation of contributory factors. The fact that unemplyed drug addicts are pre-disposed to crime is fairly simple to figure out unless you want to ignore basic economics.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

Completely disagree (unless you want to reduce the topic to little things like pushing over old ladies).

If you mean reducing the topic to first principles, then yes.

In fact society is generally split on the larger issues - millitary policy, social organization ect. Half a nation might consider a conquest a genocide (anti-social), the other might consider it rightious and productive given it spreads a given conception of freedom etc.

However the vast majority of moral impositions are not related to the 'larger issues', they might involve why we impose a particular age of consent for sex (and thus our views on what is acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviour) through to more mundane rules like which side of the road we drive on.

Class struggle doesn't really have all the answers, I'm afraid.

Historicly there has been large scale collectivization both rural and urban which proved quite successful.

Like?

Contrary to the assertion that these communities somehow (failed) due to internal issues - the reality is that they where crushed by force, largely (because) of how successful they where.

I didn't comment on why they failed, only that they did. As for suggesting that they were 'crushed' because of their success, that is probably as contentious if not more so than suggesting that they failed because of their policies.

Slavery once occupied a central prosition within social organization that dosent imply social necessity.

The abolition of slavery didn't abolish the concept of ownership, it just amended it. I don't think there is any one definition of ownership, as it varies from culture to culture, from historical period to historical period. However, all but the most basic of cultures have some form of ownership, and ever the most basic ones often tend to have ownership in terms of spouses and/or offspring.

A cause is nothing more than an emalgimation of contributory factors. The fact that unemplyed drug addicts are pre-disposed to crime is fairly simple to figure out unless you want to ignore basic economics.

Yes, unless you want to ignore all the other factors, including choice, that led them to become drug addicts in the first place.

Once addicted, the equation becomes very simple, they need to feed an addition and for that they need a greater income than they can afford, hence crime as a means to this. That's why the invasion of Afghanistan was great for reducing crime, poppy production went up, the price of heroine went down and addicts were able to afford their fix by begging alone.

Why they become addicts in the first place is another matter. One can point to a subculture in deprived areas that lends itself towards this, but that alone is not enough to explain this. Unemployment and poverty may be factors, but high rates of single parent families may also be a contributing factor - children with both parents tend to grow up with fewer antisocial traits than those with only one.

realismpol

Personally, I'm glad we had public parks, my friends' houses or some guy's cornfield to go and hang out. I'll admit I had a far cooler teenagerhood as an American than most Irish kids do here, with fretting mothers and paranoid authorities and no abandoned property to hang out on that was far enough away from 'housing estates', and no big public parks and no skate parks and no big, comfy, run-down, alcohol-free coffee shops that are essentially homework halls where you can gossip.

I'm really glad that I got to be an American teenager. Teenagers here are mean and nasty by comparison, to be honest. The more ASBOS they get the more they hate you because they have nowhere to go.

Sorry, but that whole statement is just stupid. How do you know that you had a better teenagehood then irish teens had if you were in america? Everyone's experiences are subjective.

The problem is not america was or is as you put it 'cooler' because any country that has shooting sprees every week is not a place to raise teenagers. Yes, thats right, another 10 random people killed today in alabama from some guy on a shooting spree which included random people on a motorway. Just spiffy. Its not even front page news in the states. You cannot compare ireland and america on a moral compass because america has gone off it in terms of general levels of violence.

As bad as this country and up north more recently is we don't suffer from these types of events on a weekly or daily basis and our levels of safety are generally much better then the united states. Having 300 odd million people armed to the teeth is not a place which can ever be considered safe for teenagers. I have spoken to american mothers who want to move out of america because the guncrime is out of control. And they weren't even living in areas considered as bad places in the u.s.

We are a long way away from that in this state. I have also witnessed the harrassment of cops in the states of the ordinary folk. Yes don't want 'more menacing cops' over here either thank you. We need smarter ones. You must have lived in aspen or some aflluent place where they have nothing better to do then sip coffee at starbucks and talk about how 'hot' shelley or brad is. Your experiences in aspen or whereever you were not the same as a teenager living in compton or atlanta, newark or any many other neigbourhoods in america where they can't afford to spend lazy days at the coffee shop that i can assure you of. Even in the affluent surburbs you may have been in in the states theres always a chance the scenery will explode when some guy with access to mutiple automatic weapons decides he's had one too many bad days at work. Mass death and spree killing is an accepted part of life in the U.S.

I spent some time in the states in the 90's and found it a very threatening place and personally was never comfortable or safe living there. I encountered enough problems to reinforce my previously held views of the place. The cops over there never make you feel safe and you never know what they are going to do. Knowing the amount of firearms available to the general public didn't help either. You always have to avoid eye contact with people anywhere in the states because you never know when someone will just randomly pull a gun even at service stations. Whilst i was over there one of my relatives visiting even witnessed a police officer getting shot and killed. And this was on a tourist trail.

One evening i was out walking my dog and was passing this cop in new jersey.The dog started barking at him and going towards him even on a leash and he drew his pistol and started going berzerk shouting at me to get the dog under control.

In contrast the teen years here in ireland were great. World cup 94, the boom years, watching and engaging and being a part of the scenery as the country grew up was very enjoyable. To me, its only recently this angry teenager thing, roving in gangs has occured and it is not limited to ireland or the united states despite what the above poster claims. Teens in the united states tend to take their frustrations out by you know murdering the entire family or shooting some school or mall up. Stop acting like they are under control in the states because they aren't. Cops don't supervise in the states they harass and bully and sometimes worse. The teenagers just have more ammenties to keep them occupied otherwise they would be doing the exact same thing and even with all this they still go on their sprees.

Fortunately over here we still do report murders as national news. In the states they have it so often it's not even reported on local news channels.


Anyway back to the problem we have here in Ireland.

I don't think you can consider stabbing anti social behaviour. Usually its considered attempted murder.

Antisocial behaviour clearly means different things to different people. To awnser and hopefully shed more clarity on the original posters question Anti social behaviour to me, is behaviour which goes against the norms accepted by society i.e harrassing people on the street or in their homes, being abusive towards members of public for no reason, being intoxicated in public, disturbing the peace and to an extent willfull destruction of either private or public property although this probably would be considered more criminal behaviour.

Attempted murder, assaults or rape cannot be considered 'anti social' behaviour because its not anti social behaviour i.e out of the normal its criminal behaviour. Persons engaging in such should be treated as such regardless of age.

synd

However the vast majority of moral impositions are not related to the 'larger issues', they might involve why we impose a particular age of consent for sex (and thus our views on what is acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviour) through to more mundane rules like which side of the road we drive on.

LOL - All moral impositions are related to the (larger issues) - rather obvious. Difference in discourse is used depending on subjective perspective, for instance killing may be seen as good if it benifits a certain party under a given circumstance.

Like?

Anarchist Catalonia, EZLN Chipias Mexico, Argintinian factory movement ect.

I didn't comment on why they failed, only that they did. As for suggesting that they were 'crushed' because of their success, that is probably as contentious if not more so than suggesting that they failed because of their policies.

Well if you want to use the term (failed) to desribe a reactionary responce to democratization then fine - ironicly you verify Marxian theory in the proccess.

The abolition of slavery didn't abolish the concept of ownership, it just amended it. I don't think there is any one definition of ownership, as it varies from culture to culture, from historical period to historical period. However, all but the most basic of cultures have some form of ownership, and ever the most basic ones often tend to have ownership in terms of spouses and/or offspring.

Yes, unless you want to ignore all the other factors, including choice, that led them to become drug addicts in the first place.

Choice is composed of social externalities

Once addicted, the equation becomes very simple, they need to feed an addition and for that they need a greater income than they can afford, hence crime as a means to this. That's why the invasion of Afghanistan was great for reducing crime, poppy production went up, the price of heroine went down and addicts were able to afford their fix by begging alone.

Citing socio economic factors that contribute to understanding issues - are you sure your nor a sociologist ?

Why they become addicts in the first place is another matter. One can point to a subculture in deprived areas that lends itself towards this, but that alone is not enough to explain this. Unemployment and poverty may be factors, but high rates of single parent families may also be a contributing factor - children with both parents tend to grow up with fewer antisocial traits than those with only one.

Note that I never implied sociology to have understood all causes - only cited the identification of major factors. Other than that you have basicly re-worded my responce in order to give the illusion of a rebutal. well done.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

LOL - All moral impositions are related to the (larger issues) - rather obvious. Difference in discourse is used depending on subjective perspective, for instance killing may be seen as good if it benifits a certain party under a given circumstance.

By larger issues I was following your apparent definition which was idologically based. The fundamentals of morality tend not to be tied into any specific system. Killing for self defence is something which is considered justifiable in pretty much all societies - it is only when you decide to widen the definition (by expanding what self defence means) that things get more loaded.

Anarchist Catalonia, EZLN Chipias Mexico, Argintinian factory movement ect.

Sorry, you misunderstood. I meant what "large scale collectivization both rural and urban which proved quite successful" in the real sense of the word as opposed to Indymedia.

Well if you want to use the term (failed) to desribe a reactionary responce to democratization then fine - ironicly you verify Marxian theory in the proccess.

How?

Note that I never implied sociology to have understood all causes - only cited the identification of major factors. Other than that you have basicly re-worded my responce in order to give the illusion of a rebutal. well done.

Give me a break. You gave a very simplistic response which certainly did not imply any greater complexity.

synd

By larger issues I was following your apparent definition which was idologically based. The fundamentals of morality tend not to be tied into any specific system. Killing for self defence is something which is considered justifiable in pretty much all societies - it is only when you decide to widen the definition (by expanding what self defence means) that things get more loaded.

What is regarded moral action is generally dependant on circumstance and participant therefore subjective. Many forms of traditional morality hold woman to a different standard then men - this also applies to things such as class, race ect. Your implication that basic moral terminology does not entail a double standard either stems from ignorance or deception.

The initial point was that, the term (anti social) predominantly applies to one type of behavior and more specificly to one group of people.

Except it doesn't predominantly apply to one type of behaviour or more specifically to one group of people.

Consider this analogy. Within Islamic society a man can take many wives as lovers - for a woman to do the same would be considered anti-social. The term anti-social or what is percieved as anti social within the given society is in this case dependant on the participant as opposed to the action. BTW - this refers to a basic action ie. sexual selection where a clear double standard exists.

What is called anti social by one group is often considered productive by another. The point stands that larger points of social unrest are formed by differing perceptions of the same concepts - this reflects diametrically opposed interests.

Im afraid in everyday usage it does, the term itself is non bias however its definitive qualities depend on subjective perspective. Iv found various adjectives, ''what's'' anti-social is relative - therefore the predominantly accepted cultural definition of activities that qualify as (anti social) will be largely determined by those who govern society.

Sorry, you misunderstood. I meant what "large scale collectivization both rural and urban which proved quite successful" in the real sense of the word as opposed to Indymedia.

Your sence of whats real evidently isnt the same as mine then - I prefer indymedia to Fox News

How?

Democratization of an inherently plutocratic institution results in resistence from those who stand to loose from democratization.

The Corinthian

synd wrote: »

What is regarded moral action is generally dependant on circumstance and participant therefore subjective. Many forms of traditional morality hold woman to a different standard then men - this also applies to things such as class, race ect. Your implication that basic moral terminology does not entail a double standard either stems from ignorance or deception.

No, the fundamentals remain the same, but are embellished very quickly.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods, is pretty universal, outside of the most simple of tribal communities and even there you will find some basic form of 'ownership', even if everything else is communal.

But very quickly such fundamentals become embellished and manipulated to suit the culture. This is not only because of the influence of power groups, but often for structural, historical or environmental reasons. No one can deny that Eskimo or Arab cultures have not been shaped by their environment. Isolated cultures have little need for concepts such as treason, while those who find themselves in frictional relationships will often develop entire codes of morality around loyalty to the community. Scarcity of resources or land will tend to encourage the development of ownership, while in areas where there population is low and land is seemingly endless (e.g. Australia) land ownership is irrelevant.

And then of course you will have morality as dictated by those in power to those outside of it. But that comes after a while.

Within Islamic society a man can take many wives as lovers - for a woman to do the same would be considered anti-social.

Depends upon which Islamic society you're talking about. Adultery, which includes the taking of lovers, is prohibited in much of the Islamic World.

What is called anti social by one group is often considered productive by another.

Not really, as you are ignoring every day anti social behaviour - from littering, through to murder and rape. Most anti-social behaviour cannot be explained as politically valid.

Your sence of whats real evidently isnt the same as mine then - I prefer indymedia to Fox News

I follow neither. Just as sources such as Fox News seek to dismiss and demonize leftist models, sources such as Indimedia tend to act as apologists for their failure.

It's probably better to look at the pros and cons of such models, as well as those on the right and those that don't really fit in either camp, in my opinion rather than be bound by the need to wave an ideological flag.

Unless you're a student, I suppose. In which case it's probably forgiveable.

Democratization of an inherently plutocratic institution results in resistence from those who stand to lose from democratization.

Depends on how you define democratization - on man's democracy is another's tyranny. And where exactly did Marx write this?

JimiTime

Personally, I think 'anti-social-behaviour' is a political term to decriminalise what politicians would consider lesser crimes. A group of scumbags throwing stones at cars or houses, or stealing wheely bins, or grafiti, or hurling abuse at passers by etc. Makes their stats look better to get an ASBO rather than a conviction. 'Look, crime is down'. Eh, no, its just rebranded. Personally I hate the term. People who terrorise communities are not being 'anti-social', they are being criminals. smoking could be considered anti-social. Being p!ssed could be considered anti-social. Damaging property, abusing people, stealing etc, is simply crime.

The Corinthian

JimiTime wrote: »

People who terrorise communities are not being 'anti-social', they are being criminals.

Criminal behaviour is anti-social by definition.

synd

No, the fundamentals remain the same, but are embellished very quickly.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods, is pretty universal, outside of the most simple of tribal communities and even there you will find some basic form of 'ownership', even if everything else is communal.

I wouldn't call it fundamental on the grounds that ownership of capital is generally a by-product of agrarian transition - fundamental morality exists prior to agrarian development. The fundamentals are embellished over time in accord with power relations - a point im glad to concede.

And then of course you will have morality as dictated by those in power to those outside of it. But that comes after a while.

Glad to see you agree - considering that was the general point. Those in power formulate moral standards then proceed to control how the standards are used, what groups they are applied to ect.

Again no - (fundamental) morality often entails a double standard, take traditional sexual morality as an analogy. Ie - It is immoral for woman to do A and B, It is immoral for a man to do A but not B.

Not really, as you are ignoring every day anti social behaviour - from littering, through to murder and rape. Most anti-social behaviour cannot be explained as politically valid.

Ergo the word (often) - inserted to illustrate my awareness of the above point :rolleyes: - which you chose to ignore in order to strawman my position. Another meaningless comment designed to give the illusion of a rebuttal - a bad habit of yours I think.

I follow neither. Just as sources such as Fox News seek to dismiss and demonize leftist models, sources such as Indimedia tend to act as apologists for their failure.

The failure of models that have never been implemented ? Which models are you referring to exactly ? - Id be suspect with regards your definitions of success and failure and what they pertain to in specific ?

A society that produces high GDP is invariably a (success) I take it ?

As for the success of the said movements - as far as sustaining their own goals and meeting their own objectives they have proven so far successful.

It's probably better to look at the pros and cons of such models, as well as those on the right and those that don't really fit in either camp, in my opinion rather than be bound by the need to wave an ideological flag.

I agree - although I wouldn't bother using the terms right or left in that case. For example capitalism has an effective price mechanism while being irrational, inefficient and wasteful.

Unless you're a student, I suppose. In which case it's probably forgivable.

If your a liberal your arrogance stems from ignorance - In which case it's probably forgivable.

Depends on how you define democratization - on man's democracy is another's tyranny. And where exactly did Marx write this?

Marxian theory generally holds to the notion of reactionary movements - its a recurrent theme you'l find it in the manifesto ect.

Democracy - Facilitating equality in collective decision making. Naturally an oligarch might consider the process tyrannical. Liberals label democracy the tyranny of the majority in order to justify minority rule - the irony seems lost on them.

JimiTime

The Corinthian wrote: »

Criminal behaviour is anti-social by definition.

I do know that. My point is its use as a political phrase. It lessens the impact of the reality. We don't really hear murderers being described as 'anti-social'. Technically a correct term to use, but certainly understates the gravity of what they've done.

Quaver

The definition of anti-social behaviour differs for everyone I think depending on their own personality/fears etc., e.g. the kids hanging around a street corner would be considered acting anto-socially for the terrified old lady living on her own, but the kids themselves see it as just somewhere to chat.

Blue_Wolf

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It is behaviour which inflicts distress on others.

No that is not true. It is behaviour of people(s) which the majority of that society do not deem as acceptable. A man walking on grafton street with no shoes on is socially unacceptable however, it does not distress anyone.
A man walking up grafton in the nude is socially unacceptable and can distress some people.
This is a very broad question you are asking mate and can vary in opinion based on different religions and different societies. Ireland is very diverse now, the term socially unacceptable and what it means will never change but peoples attitudes towards certain things change and once something changes to a majority than something that was once socially unacceptable is now socially acceptable.

Good luck with your project.

Blue_Wolf

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, I think 'anti-social-behaviour' is a political term to decriminalise what politicians would consider lesser crimes. A group of scumbags throwing stones at cars or houses, or stealing wheely bins, or grafiti, or hurling abuse at passers by etc. Makes their stats look better to get an ASBO rather than a conviction. 'Look, crime is down'. Eh, no, its just rebranded. Personally I hate the term. People who terrorise communities are not being 'anti-social', they are being criminals. smoking could be considered anti-social. Being p!ssed could be considered anti-social. Damaging property, abusing people, stealing etc, is simply crime.

People always make the mistake and generalize anti social behaviour as lesser crimes and that's it. You hate the term JimiTime for the wrong reason.
Me farting is anti sociable behaviour, me burping in a resteraunt out load is anti social behaviour. Me cursing in a resteraunt or in a public area without care for children beside me is anti social behaviour. Although for Muslims burping during their meal is sociably acceptable and in fact is to compliment the food they have just ate which goes hand in hand with my point earlier about different societies and religions accept different behaviours.
Yes you are right that crime is anti sociable and would be played with more so with the lesser type crimes but the term is used more so with what I have pointed out.