Morals????

[SweetPrettyAss]

That's not logical at all. An exception is an exception, not an inclusion.

And what is "pedophile logic?"

I suppose pedophole logic would be the belief of a pedo that the boys and girls they victimize are actually beneficiaries because they enjoy it. I don't agree with that logic and I don't believe the children enjoy it much but I am not a pedophile. When I was a child one of my friends was molested by an uncle and she hated it.

 

[WRJames]

Morals are based on two ways of thinking. One is based on self evident premises which includes all revealed morals. Some say these revealed morals have been written down in sacred books and manuscripts and have always been here. These morals are independent of man's interactions and exist in a frame of spiritual laws. Such frames or forms are entities such as logic, the scientific method, laws of gravity, physics, medicine, psychology, ethics, etc. These are all entities although they are not visible with the eye but these are visible and verifiable with the the mind and spirit of man. These morals are not created by man and are what many people believe is evidence of a God Creator.

Morals that are self evident act as restrains on man's lustful, carnal nature and a motivation for deeds of love, charity and brotherhood for the spiritual side of man. Morals that were created with man are rational, unchangeable, and eternal and, thus, makes it possible to use rock solid logic to evaluate values of good and evil. Logic is a main characteristic of God created morals. In God created morals the process of a base or premise follows a strait path of deduction and induction, the main tool of identifying truth. An example of correct deduction and induction is the scientific method.

The second type of morality can best be termed by such words as humanism, moral relativity, individual freewill, atheism, and a few other such terms that signifies independence from the restraints of pre-existent moral demands. The moral relativist derives his authority for moral behavior from social interaction wherein he believes that moral codes must change with the times of men. What may be considered moral today may be immoral tomorrow. What is perverted today may be normal tomorrow. Some say that this morality is based on man's lust like hunger, abnormal sex, and uncontrolled anger. There is freedom in this style of morality where one can renounce established moral restraints and replace these old restrains with new and ever changing restraints. Logic does not play a highly significant role in moral relativity and humanism, but are promoted by changing events. Liberals use this type of reasoning by referring to the Constitution of the USA as a living organism such as Hegelian logic would create.

There it is, short but sweet.

The only problem is that there is no historical evidence to back your assertions

 

[lass714]

I suppose pedophole logic would be the belief of a pedo that the boys and girls they victimize are actually beneficiaries because they enjoy it. I don't agree with that logic and I don't believe the children enjoy it much but I am not a pedophile. When I was a child one of my friends was molested by an uncle and she hated it.

A pedophile is one who has recurrent sexual urges and/or fantasies towards prepubescent or pubescent children (usually their preference is for one or the other) or one who has been accused and/or convicted of child molestation. Pedophile logic( my experience) will usual take the form to provide the pedo justification for their action "she/he wanted it, she/he is always flaunting herself to me; even though it may be a 6 month infant. Another justification would be they convince themselves that no one can love the child like they do and the rape/sexual abuse is their attempt of displaying that love to them. Your advanced (for lack of a better word) pedophile will 'groom their victim' months before they seduce the child and then continue this grooming during and and even months after the molestation has stoppped (think of it a s a form of brainwashing). They supplement their fantasies by the veiwing of child porn. Although a pedo once caught veiw will deny they have "touched" studies have indicated that over 80% (Dr Andres Hernandes trial study and testimony before congress) have is some type of form such as the groping, fondling of a child etc

Sorry I didn't mean to get up on my soapbox

 

[SimonBrooke]

Okay so I have sucked down a couple of cold ones. My thoughts may not be the most coherent. That being said I do have a question about morals.

Who declares what they are?

You know of what I speak. Nudity, Marriage and sexuality. Who declares what is correct and what isn't? How do they claim the right to be the purveryers of what is right? How can they claim the ability to tell everyone what is correct? On what do they base their views?

What's the context, Cat?

It seems to me that nudity, marriage and sexuality have, per se, nothing whatever to do with morals, and everything to do with conventions. Morals are about doing things which cause harm to others. Now, you can cause harm to other through your sexual praxis, just as you can through how you drive your car or how you manage your garden. But we don't see driving or gardening as big moral issues (maybe we should).

What someone wears or doesn't wear doesn't (normally) harm other people. Nudity must necessarily morally neutral. Sex between consenting adults doesn't normally harm other people - people may feel that their 'property' rights over their spouse's body are being violated, but if they do I see that as being their problem. Marriage? What's marriage beyond a conventional arrangement between two adults? Adults are free to enter into agreements, and once they've entered into them, they are under some (moral, if you like) obligation to stick to them. But that applies to every agreement, equally. Marriage is not 'special'.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Before I went to psychology grad school I majored in anthropology as an undergrad. I keep up with this interest through my reading.

Generally speaking, moral conduct is whatever works for a specific society. Most of the time its codified, and a lot isnt, to allow for wiggle room. Probably the worst society on the planet is the Ik! tribe of Uganda. Colin Turnbull, the famous anthropologist, lived with them for a few years and claimed they're the only people he ever hated.

The Ik! abandon their children at 3 years and use infants to feed captured animals before slaughter. Most of the females are child prostiutes and are generally dead by 20. The men dont last much longer. Both die from starvation, abuse, and neglect. Members of the society literally remove food from your mouth, steal whatever you have, and lethal pranks are their chief amusement.

As I said, the girls are prostiutes for the government soldiers, and the boys prey on them for food and money. The soldiers dont care for girls over 12, so beyond 12 the females have an impossible time surviving. The soldiers dont want them and they have no value to the predatory boys, so they exist by stealing. But there isnt much to steal.

Turnbull blamed the government. The Usual Suspects in the West prevailed upon the government to create animal sanctuaries. The Ik! were forced to leave their space for a sterile range of rocky hills outside the new animal sanctuary. With no game or arable land, they became feral and predatory.

 

[Verdad]

Before I went to psychology grad school I majored in anthropology as an undergrad. I keep up with this interest through my reading.

Generally speaking, moral conduct is whatever works for a specific society. Most of the time its codified, and a lot isnt, to allow for wiggle room. Probably the worst society on the planet is the Ik! tribe of Uganda. Colin Turnbull, the famous anthropologist, lived with them for a few years and claimed they're the only people he ever hated.

The Ik! abandon their children at 3 years and use infants to feed captured animals before slaughter. Most of the females are child prostiutes and are generally dead by 20. The men dont last much longer. Both die from starvation, abuse, and neglect. Members of the society literally remove food from your mouth, steal whatever you have, and lethal pranks are their chief amusement.

As I said, the girls are prostiutes for the government soldiers, and the boys prey on them for food and money. The soldiers dont care for girls over 12, so beyond 12 the females have an impossible time surviving. The soldiers dont want them and they have no value to the predatory boys, so they exist by stealing. But there isnt much to steal.

Turnbull blamed the government. The Usual Suspects in the West prevailed upon the government to create animal sanctuaries. The Ik! were forced to leave their space for a sterile range of rocky hills outside the new animal sanctuary. With no game or arable land, they became feral and predatory.

Homo homini lupus, eh? Here's a very interesting article that touches upon the Ik:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1981----.htm

 

[WRJames]

Most of our morality has rather shallow roots. Take nudity for example. Plunk someone down in the middle of a nude beach and odds are they'll wind up with their clothes off.

More disturbingly, if someone declares that it's "okay" to kill, torture, and rape, it doesn't seem to take too much encouragement to get that to happen.

Of course, this behavior is contextual. The same group of people sitting together naked on the beach would not be comfortable that way in church. In fact, it might be very embarassing to encounter one of your church or business friends at a nude beach. (One exception -- there was a 3M office out near Hippie Hollow, and there was this group from there that used to come out to the beach, take their clothes off, and sit around talking shop.) The soldier who kills and rapes the "enemy" hopefully does not resort to the same activities at home.

 

[Verdad]

Most of our morality has rather shallow roots. Take nudity for example. Plunk someone down in the middle of a nude beach and odds are they'll wind up with their clothes off.

More disturbingly, if someone declares that it's "okay" to kill, torture, and rape, it doesn't seem to take too much encouragement to get that to happen.

Of course, this behavior is contextual. The same group of people sitting together naked on the beach would not be comfortable that way in church. In fact, it might be very embarassing to encounter one of your church or business friends at a nude beach. (One exception -- there was a 3M office out near Hippie Hollow, and there was this group from there that used to come out to the beach, take their clothes off, and sit around talking shop.) The soldier who kills and rapes the "enemy" hopefully does not resort to the same activities at home.

WR, if there's a reason you put stripping on a beach and murder in the same thought, I can't for the life of me figure it out.

 

[angelicminx]

A pedophile is one who has recurrent sexual urges and/or fantasies towards prepubescent or pubescent children (usually their preference is for one or the other) or one who has been accused and/or convicted of child molestation. Pedophile logic( my experience) will usual take the form to provide the pedo justification for their action "she/he wanted it, she/he is always flaunting herself to me; even though it may be a 6 month infant. Another justification would be they convince themselves that no one can love the child like they do and the rape/sexual abuse is their attempt of displaying that love to them. Your advanced (for lack of a better word) pedophile will 'groom their victim' months before they seduce the child and then continue this grooming during and and even months after the molestation has stoppped (think of it a s a form of brainwashing). They supplement their fantasies by the veiwing of child porn. Although a pedo once caught veiw will deny they have "touched" studies have indicated that over 80% (Dr Andres Hernandes trial study and testimony before congress) have is some type of form such as the groping, fondling of a child etc

Sorry I didn't mean to get up on my soapbox

I've got to step in here for a moment. Your statement includes as a pedophile someone who has been ACCUSED of child molestation. Nope, sorry. I grant you, SOME of the accused are likely guilty, but not ALL. I've known a few people who pissed off the wrong teen, or the wrong family, and had a slew of accusations flung at them. When an accusation like this goes to court, chances are pretty good that the accused will be found guilty, whether they are or not. IMO, since I don't have hard statistics to back it up, the accused only has about a 10 percent chance of proving that they are not guilty.


(For the record, I've also known a few that are guilty as hell and have never been publicly accused.)

 

[WRJames]

WR, if there's a reason you put stripping on a beach and murder in the same thought, I can't for the life of me figure it out.

Well, most of us (on this forum at least) would probably think that losing our inhibitions (and our clothes) at the beach is a positive thing. I certainly do.

The problem is that some inhibtions are important. If this was just a theoritical problem I wouldn't bother mentioning it. But look at what has happened in Bosnia, Rawanda, Darfur, DR Congo, Liberia -- you can add your own entries to the list. For that matter gang warfare in the US.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lass714
A pedophile is one who has recurrent sexual urges and/or fantasies towards prepubescent or pubescent children (usually their preference is for one or the other) or one who has been accused and/or convicted of child molestation. Pedophile logic( my experience) will usual take the form to provide the pedo justification for their action "she/he wanted it, she/he is always flaunting herself to me; even though it may be a 6 month infant. Another justification would be they convince themselves that no one can love the child like they do and the rape/sexual abuse is their attempt of displaying that love to them. Your advanced (for lack of a better word) pedophile will 'groom their victim' months before they seduce the child and then continue this grooming during and and even months after the molestation has stoppped (think of it a s a form of brainwashing). They supplement their fantasies by the veiwing of child porn. Although a pedo once caught veiw will deny they have "touched" studies have indicated that over 80% (Dr Andres Hernandes trial study and testimony before congress) have is some type of form such as the groping, fondling of a child etc

Sorry I didn't mean to get up on my soapbox

I've got to step in here for a moment. Your statement includes as a pedophile someone who has been ACCUSED of child molestation. Nope, sorry. I grant you, SOME of the accused are likely guilty, but not ALL. I've known a few people who pissed off the wrong teen, or the wrong family, and had a slew of accusations flung at them. When an accusation like this goes to court, chances are pretty good that the accused will be found guilty, whether they are or not. IMO, since I don't have hard statistics to back it up, the accused only has about a 10 percent chance of proving that they are not guilty.


(For the record, I've also known a few that are guilty as hell and have never been publicly accused.)

Even some convictions have been bogus, and this has been proven in cases involving day care centers and probably other places. I still remember a nice teacher in Pleasanton CA. He was a teacher in the lower grades.

We are all familar with the idea of "good touching" by relatives, etc. and "bad touching" by just about anybody else. A kindergarten or first grade teacher would sometimes spend more time with some children than their own parents, and should be considered one of the "good touch" group. The man I am thinking of did no more than give piggyback rides or hug his students or tuck in shirts, but he is still doing fifteen years in prison.

 

[lass714]

I've got to step in here for a moment. Your statement includes as a pedophile someone who has been ACCUSED of child molestation. Nope, sorry. I grant you, SOME of the accused are likely guilty, but not ALL. I've known a few people who pissed off the wrong teen, or the wrong family, and had a slew of accusations flung at them. When an accusation like this goes to court, chances are pretty good that the accused will be found guilty, whether they are or not. IMO, since I don't have hard statistics to back it up, the accused only has about a 10 percent chance of proving that they are not guilty.


(For the record, I've also known a few that are guilty as hell and have never been publicly accused.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lass714
A pedophile is one who has recurrent sexual urges and/or fantasies towards prepubescent or pubescent children (usually their preference is for one or the other) or one who has been accused and/or convicted of child molestation. Pedophile logic( my experience) will usual take the form to provide the pedo justification for their action "she/he wanted it, she/he is always flaunting herself to me; even though it may be a 6 month infant. Another justification would be they convince themselves that no one can love the child like they do and the rape/sexual abuse is their attempt of displaying that love to them. Your advanced (for lack of a better word) pedophile will 'groom their victim' months before they seduce the child and then continue this grooming during and and even months after the molestation has stoppped (think of it a s a form of brainwashing). They supplement their fantasies by the veiwing of child porn. Although a pedo once caught veiw will deny they have "touched" studies have indicated that over 80% (Dr Andres Hernandes trial study and testimony before congress) have is some type of form such as the groping, fondling of a child etc

Sorry I didn't mean to get up on my soapbox




Even some convictions have been bogus, and this has been proven in cases involving day care centers and probably other places. I still remember a nice teacher in Pleasanton CA. He was a teacher in the lower grades.

We are all familar with the idea of "good touching" by relatives, etc. and "bad touching" by just about anybody else. A kindergarten or first grade teacher would sometimes spend more time with some children than their own parents, and should be considered one of the "good touch" group. The man I am thinking of did no more than give piggyback rides or hug his students or tuck in shirts, but he is still doing fifteen years in prison.

Angelicminx thank you for correcting me as I meant to write 'accused and convicted'. I appreciate you catching that error on my behalf

I also agree with you and Boxlicker101 on the subject of individuals being convicted and sentenced to prison on false accusations made by children who were manipulated by adults to fabricate allegations of sexual abuse. I have also seen victims that cannot verbalize their sexual abuse as they are to young to talk. As you pointed out Angelicminx what about that pissed off teenager getting payback by lying about abuse occurring? I can say the method and techniques used to interview the child have improved greatly these past few years but it will never be fool proof method. Innocent people are also falsley convicted of murder, rape robbery etc. The criminal justice system in the US is far from perfect but it's what we have. Innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Angelicminx thank you for correcting me as I meant to write 'accused and convicted'. I appreciate you catching that error on my behalf

I also agree with you and Boxlicker101 on the subject of individuals being convicted and sentenced to prison on false accusations made by children who were manipulated by adults to fabricate allegations of sexual abuse. I have also seen victims that cannot verbalize their sexual abuse as they are to young to talk. As you pointed out Angelicminx what about that pissed off teenager getting payback by lying about abuse occurring? I can say the method and techniques used to interview the child have improved greatly these past few years but it will never be fool proof method. Innocent people are also falsley convicted of murder, rape robbery etc. The criminal justice system in the US is far from perfect but it's what we have. Innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free.

You can't really compare accusations of child abuse or rape with accusations of most other crimes. In the former, it is necessary for the accused to prove innocence, while the burden of proof is on the prosecution in other cases. It's not supposed to be that way, but it pretty much is. Suborning of young witnesses is the norm in the former, but such things are less common in the latter.

 

[Verdad]

Well, most of us (on this forum at least) would probably think that losing our inhibitions (and our clothes) at the beach is a positive thing. I certainly do.

The problem is that some inhibtions are important. If this was just a theoritical problem I wouldn't bother mentioning it. But look at what has happened in Bosnia, Rawanda, Darfur, DR Congo, Liberia -- you can add your own entries to the list. For that matter gang warfare in the US.

I don't mean to be rude, but... For starters, stripping on a nudist beach is not losing inhibitions. It's a context-appropriate behavior, where willing participants observe the dress code of a place with clear rules about participation. Like you go to a black-tie party in a black tie, so you go to a nudist beach nude. And I really don't have time or energy to explain why it would be a silly comparison to add, "yes, and to a genocide party, you go with a gun."

 

[oggbashan]

I don't mean to be rude, but... For starters, stripping on a nudist beach is not losing inhibitions. It's a context-appropriate behavior, where willing participants observe the dress code of a place with clear rules about participation. Like you go to a black-tie party in a black tie, so you go to a nudist beach nude. And I really don't have time or energy to explain why it would be a silly comparison to add, "yes, and to a genocide party, you go with a gun."

Robert Heinlein expressed situational conventions well with the "hand on thigh" anecdote. (Og's paraphrase because I can't find the reference)

A man and a woman were on a beach dressed in minimal but socially acceptable swimwear. The man reached over the woman to pick something up, resting his hand lightly on her thigh to balance himself.

That evening, formally dressed, him in tux, she in full length gown, she invited him to put his hand up her skirt and place his hand exactly where he had put it while on the beach. He couldn't do it.

Og

 

[Verdad]

Robert Heinlein expressed situational conventions well with the "hand on thigh" anecdote. (Og's paraphrase because I can't find the reference)

A man and a woman were on a beach dressed in minimal but socially acceptable swimwear. The man reached over the woman to pick something up, resting his hand lightly on her thigh to balance himself.

That evening, formally dressed, him in tux, she in full length gown, she invited him to put his hand up her skirt and place his hand exactly where he had put it while on the beach. He couldn't do it.

Og

That's a good one, Ogg. I understand the point of context affecting inhibitions, but I was baffled with the connection WR made. As I said, nudity on a nude beach isn't really a case of losing inhibitions, so it can't be compared, even psychologically, to a loss of inhibitions that leads to a say, slaughter. Somewhat comparable situation would be nudity in a non-appropriate context where, for example, a group of drunken patrons begins stripping in a bar. Psychologically, that might be a case of a mob developing, and yes, mobs are capable of just about anything. In moral terms, though, if this particular mob ends up doing nothing more than displaying their asses, they've really done something akin to talking loudly during a movie projection. They've violated the rules of the place, and they've exposed other, unwilling patrons, to something they didn't agree to witness. We're still not getting all that close to murder, unless there's something inherently horrible about nudity.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Homo homini lupus, eh? Here's a very interesting article that touches upon the Ik:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1981----.htm

Nor did the Nazi eat the Jew, again reinforcing the notion that the Nazi had a viable society with dignity.

The article is the viral spawn of Franz Boaz and his silliness. Boaz asserted that every society is as valuable as any other society. Margaret Mead ate it up and licked the bowl.

Good article otherwise.

 

[kendo1]

I see that worm's first reply was copied and pasted direct from christianforums.net (Confused Carnal Mind-the Enemy of God-A Message to Nazarenes)

 

[Verdad]

Nor did the Nazi eat the Jew, again reinforcing the notion that the Nazi had a viable society with dignity.

The article is the viral spawn of Franz Boaz and his silliness. Boaz asserted that every society is as valuable as any other society. Margaret Mead ate it up and licked the bowl.

Good article otherwise.

Glad you liked. I was sorry not more of that book was online.

I don't know if Singer tried to defend the Ik society, though. He did warn against jumping to the conclusion that they're 'true' human nature incarnated, as per Hobbes. As bad as it got with the Ik, they apparently retained some moral concepts, which Singer used to develop the thought about evolutionary roots of morality.

He didn't grant their society some kind of validity just because it existed, though. He just described, and presented some evidence that even in the extreme circumstances the 'basic' human nature isn't entirely bleak. Of course, one would rather not find out…

 

[WRJames]

I don't mean to be rude, but... For starters, stripping on a nudist beach is not losing inhibitions. It's a context-appropriate behavior, where willing participants observe the dress code of a place with clear rules about participation. Like you go to a black-tie party in a black tie, so you go to a nudist beach nude. And I really don't have time or energy to explain why it would be a silly comparison to add, "yes, and to a genocide party, you go with a gun."

More likely a machete.

Time or energy -- or any logic? The problem is that genocide, all too easily, does become "context appropriate behavior".

 

[SimonBrooke]

More likely a machete.

Time or energy -- or any logic? The problem is that genocide, all too easily, does become "context appropriate behavior".

You know, that strikes me as an obscenely stupid comment.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that perfectly ordinary people - people not unlike you and me - got caught up in the genocides in Rwanda and in Bosnia and killed other perfectly ordinary people whom they knew well - their neighbours, sometimes even their relatives. Yes, I know there is some sort of perverse group behaviour that can happen, and no, I'm not high and mighty enough to believe I'm immune.

Nevertheless, carving your neighbours up with a machete during a genocide harms people. Therefore, it is an issue about morals. Getting naked on a nude beach doesn't harm anyone. Therefore it is not an issue about morals.

The two things are utterly incommensurate.

 

[Pure]

Note to Simon, Note to WR

simon said Nevertheless, carving your neighbours up with a machete during a genocide harms people. Therefore, it is an issue about morals. Getting naked on a nude beach doesn't harm anyone. Therefore it is not an issue about morals.

i don't know if you saw our other thread about psycholgist Haidt, but limiting 'moral' issues, or the scope of 'morality' to what harms others, is not exactly standard in the West, nor in Jewish or Xian thought. for example, your having sex with your sister (using 'protection' or even if she's sterile).

see: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/GHN.final.JPSP.2008.12.09.pdf

i know it's not exactly the same sphere, but legal codes too, generally embrace more than 'non harm' issus [i'm assuming there is a fair overlap of moral and legal codes; and that most people find most of what's against a legal code, esp. in criminal law, to be against one's moral code, though not vice versa.]

===
As to the original comparison by WR, which he clarified:

WROf course, this behavior is contextual. The same group of people sitting together naked on the beach would not be comfortable that way in church. In fact, it might be very embarassing to encounter one of your church or business friends at a nude beach. (One exception -- there was a 3M office out near Hippie Hollow, and there was this group from there that used to come out to the beach, take their clothes off, and sit around talking shop.) The soldier who kills and rapes the "enemy" hopefully does not resort to the same activities at home.


Verdad said, //WR, if there's a reason you put stripping on a beach and murder in the same thought, I can't for the life of me figure it out.//

WR Well, most of us (on this forum at least) would probably think that losing our inhibitions (and our clothes) at the beach is a positive thing. I certainly do.

The problem is that some inhibtions are important. If this was just a theoritical problem I wouldn't bother mentioning it. But look at what has happened in Bosnia, Rawanda, Darfur, DR Congo, Liberia -- you can add your own entries to the list. For that matter gang warfare in the US.

i do see a kind of parallel, in that going nude as well as killing [e.g. by soldeirs in their platoon] can be behaviors induced or enforced by group pressures, depending on the circumstances and context, as specified. i'm not sure i'd call it simple 'loosening of inhibitions'. in groups (e.g., crowds and lynch mobs), there is a kind of 'group mind' that can take over; each individual's impulses--e.g. murderous-- are drawn upon, evoked, and channeled.



[from wiki] Seneca the Younger wrote about Rome during Saturnalia around AD 50 (Sen. epist. 18,1-2):

It is now the month of December, when the greatest part of the city is in a bustle. Loose reins are given to public dissipation; everywhere you may hear the sound of great preparations, as if there were some real difference between the days devoted to Saturn and those for transacting business....Were you here, I would willingly confer with you as to the plan of our conduct; whether we should eve in our usual way, or, to avoid singularity, both take a better supper and throw off the toga.

====
isn't it odd that 'group pressures' seem both to generate portions of 'morality' AND to generate some of the grossest violations of it, e.g in Ruanda.

it's well known that the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" [KJV], in fact and in context, meant "Thou shalt not murder," and thus expressly excluded battlefield behavior of soldiers.

 

[WRJames]

i do see a kind of parallel, in that going nude as well as killing [e.g. by soldeirs in their platoon] can be behaviors induced or enforced by group pressures, depending on the circumstances and context, as specified. i'm not sure i'd call it simple 'loosening of inhibitions'. in groups (e.g., crowds and lynch mobs), there is a kind of 'group mind' that can take over; each individual's impulses--e.g. murderous-- are drawn upon, evoked, and channeled..

Yes -- and the evidence is that it does not take much to get this going. Believe me, no one is more in favor of nudes beaches than me -- I'm not in any way trying to condemn them or suggest that they are evil or immoral.

But, even the nude beaches have gradations of morality. Is it okay to walk around and gawk? How about getting an erection? How about public sex?
What about having children present at the nude beach -- is it a problem if they are naked?

Actually these are not, for me, theoretical questions either. I've encountered all these situations at one time or another.

it's well known that the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" [KJV], in fact and in context, meant "Thou shalt not murder," and thus expressly excluded battlefield behavior of soldiers.

More than that, there are descriptions of God commanding genocide and use of the remaining female children as (presumably sex) slaves -- this to the same Moses who brought down that commandment.

 

[Verdad]

More likely a machete.

Time or energy -- or any logic? The problem is that genocide, all too easily, does become "context appropriate behavior".

Yes, illogical, that's me. Whereas we can learn a bit about logic from this:

Step 1: Mr. and Mrs. Middleaged play mini golf sans pants in an area designated for mini golf sans pants.

Step 2: Somewhere around hole 5, just as their higher cortical functions begin deteriorating, they spot another, similar couple. Sooner than you know it, all four are back in their tent, swinging like there's no tomorrow.

Step 3: Not satisfied with the entire Kamasutra, the uninhibited four raid the next people's tent, murder them, and bury the bodies in the woods.

QED.

If there's any point in being serious and trying to untangle all the apples and oranges you managed to connect, you're trying to put unrelated behaviors on the same continuum. Never mind that you don't have a moral case. You don't have a psychological case either. Gratuitous violence isn't somehow the next step after shedding your clothes. There is no progression here, or a slippery slope. The behaviors just don't belong on the same scale. It's highly questionable if Step 1 and 2 belong on the same scale, and Step 3 is simply in a parallel universe.

What you're saying is no different than, "One day you have cocktails after work, and the next day you're that much closer to finding yourself in a genocidal mob." That must sound nonsensical even to you, so you invented the 'underlying principle' of loosening inhibitions. Cocktail hour loosens inhibitions. Genocide involves a loss of inhibitions. Ergo, cocktail hour brings us closer to genocide.

Since I'm not logical, you can look up the fallacies involved for yourself.

Oh, and no need to appeal to our 'common Lit values'. I'm not a nudist and don't have any sympathy whatever for the practice. Personally, I think it's one of the silliest pastimes on earth. Mini golf would be a close second. And both have about equal chances of unraveling the fabric of society.

 

[Pure]

note

the issue is that for some, we may say, those of Calvinist mind, "license" is a kind of grab-bag scare category: you start with immodesty (a wife’s exposed cleavage) and you end with murder (by jealous spouse). in fact, of course, this is, as Verdad suggests, apples and oranges.

the weird equation led those in Massachusetts Colony to have a *crime* of not going to church on Sunday. the idea, i'm pretty sure is this, and it's wacky: you thumb your nose at God in one way, missing Church, and the next day you'll be grabbing your neighbor's wife's ass and after that, killing him and enslaving his kids.

as for mobs. we all have seen barroom camaraderie. occasionally it becomes rowdiness, in this 'lowering of inhibition,' someone dances, even strips on a table. this happens thousands of times.

but in the one in a thousand case in question, the crowd ends by cheering on a rape, and a some even participate. (the real events depicted in the movie, 'the accused', with Jodie Foster.)

is this simply "license" carried to its logical end?

no, there is something that is the trigger for the criminal stuff. there is NOT just lowered inhibitions, rather some vile impulse is injected by one or two; even then a normal crowd might have acted as a brake. but in this case, for various reasons malice took root and spread.

another well known case, again one in a thousand, involves no nudity. as most cases don't. the giant sale at a Walmart, Nov 28, 2008 on Long Island. the normal enthusiastic crowd took a turn from pushing to crushing. an employee was trampled and no one seemed to care. again, we have to look for special factors, not just a crowd's enthusiasm for picking up a 'good buy.'