Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Antisocial behaviour
-
17-02-2009 06:58PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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:
0 -
-
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.
TrueBut 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.
0 -
-
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.
0 -
Divert attention from the topic? How?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:
I thought history being nothing but class struggle went out a good while back.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.
It would appear that you don't understand English as I actually disagreed and stated the opposite relationship.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.
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.No, its not a paradox. An egalitarian ideology must be egalitarian.
Sure.Most egalitarian ideologies make no claim to (absolute equality) - rather advocate a greater degree of equality than exists under the current mode of organization.
That would be a nice theory, but it would not explain murder, rape, or many other crimes.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.
Not everything it tied into revolutionary ideology
0 -
-
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 sureThat 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.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Except it doesn't predominantly apply to one type of behaviour or more specifically to one group of people.The initial point was that, the term (anti social) predominantly applies to one type of behavior and more specificly to one group of people.
I believe your definition of 'reasonably' might be a little different to mine there. Of course that may be down to my monopolized vocabulary.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.
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.Causation has been established - the causes of anti social behaviour are well documented.
_______________________________________
0 -
-
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.
0 -
That's a very clever way of saying "in my opinion".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:
Except society generally agrees upon the bulk of what is anti-social.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.
Of course, there will always be detractors, like NAMBA, if that's what you mean.
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).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).
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.
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.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.
______________________
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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 NewsHow?
Democratization of an inherently plutocratic institution results in resistence from those who stand to loose from democratization.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement