Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
When your dad smacked your mum, she shut up and did what she was told. When you got big enough to smack your dad, he stopped bashing you. If people were scared of you, you didn't get picked on.
I can totally see that. If you live in a (sub)culture of violence, being violent is actually the appropriate response, in terms of self-preservation. This is the dilemma of "breaking the cycle"; finding some way to help those who have learned that violence is the appropriate personal response, to reject it for the greater good.
As for the effect of sporting or gaming violence, I suspect it's much weaker than the observed effect of real-life violence.
I totally agree, but at least doing something about the former is not a catch 22. If internal family factors perpetuate violence, external factors need not add fuel to the fire.
-
Humans are social animals, and living in an environment that promotes or glorifies realistic violent endeavour surely contributes to a situation where an adult feels justified, even supported, in continuing a set of abusive behaviours towards others; and in many cases this would be children associated with that adult.
We don't live in a vacuum; and society is not a collection of omniscient rational economic actors. We live in a complex social environment where many of the factors are co-related. And it would do well if our analysis of child-abuse statistics reflected this.
Well said. I know that studies reportedly often don't support that conclusion; I just think that it's probably extremely hard to do an accurate statistical analysis of the situation. I think you're right.
-
so a fair tackle in rugby isn't violent, but a punch is?
Precisely.
-
The definition of unjust and unwarranted changes depending on context.
No it doesn't; that's why it's called a definition. It's what qualifies as unjust or unwarranted that is dependant on context.
Hence, a bit of biff on the rugby field doesn't count - just ask the crowd if it was "just" or "warranted".
What is "just" or "warranted" is not dependant on the opinion of the crowd.
-
Those who think rugby leads to violence should go and visit one of the scarier UK soccer grounds, Millwall springs to mind.
We're talking about New Zealand. No-one's saying that Rugby, as such, leads to violence, but that inside the culture of Rugby in NZ, violence on the feild is acceptable (which is, I'd suggest, pretty much self-evident, or else why do assault charges never transpire).
Punching someone in the face is not part of the game of Rugby, yet when it happens it's often celebrated by the crowd, commentators and promo editors. How many Black Caps get busted for "late night altercations" in bars, compared to All Blacks or Warriors? Coincidence?
BTW, "violence" means "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power". Hence, Martial Arts doesn't count as violence.
-
There's no truth, just taste.
That is so wrong. By that logic Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling is no greater or less great as art than a McDonalds billboard; it's just a matter of which the viewer prefers. Surely, you can not be saying that.
"Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness." - Pablo Picasso
-
The whole interview was full of romantic utterances that might not have borne rigorous scrutiny but sounded marvellous at the time.
Likewise, my original comment.
-
A poet at some stage has to be poor. And somehow money spoils poetry. It does, it takes away, it changes your original intention. I always become nasty when I have money.
I think one point has been overlooked. Nico's statement is not about the difference between making money from your art and not, but about the inability of the financially secure person to have much insight into the human condition.
Wealthy people (at least those who have never been poor) generally make worthless "art" because everything that they experience in life is filtered through their position of financial superiority over other people. In short, because they can buy anything, they do not appreciate the value of anything. Thus, their musings on life will almost certainly be utterly corrupted.
-
"Bumps" Blackwell, apparently. Not a name that rings much of a bell for me, but the song was, of course, an absolute standard of the Rock 'n Roll era; Chuck Berry, Elvis, Everly Brothers, Beatles, etc., etc.
Don't be too hard on the kids though, RB. Consider this: Expecting today's students to know about that song is the chronological equivalent of you being well-versed in the music of 1929.
;) -