Antisocial behaviour

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.