NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/11049

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 8.8 KB | 172 lines

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!psygate.psych.indiana.edu!nate
From: [e-mail] (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A Stolen Life, A Dying Soul
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mushroom.psych.indiana.edu
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:39:10 GMT
Lines: 159

    Long flame rebuttal here, folks. Press 'n' now unless you have a few
moments to burn.

[e-mail] (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>[e-mail] (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>     Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would
>> note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly
>> successful empire builders.

>Maybe the word "soulless" is giving you some trouble...how about
>"MORAL CHARACTER."  Do you honestly believe that an empire can be
>build and sustained if its leaders and citizens do not have the
>moral character that binds them together for common purpose?

    You are absolutely correct that a common purpose is essential to the
growth and maintenance of an empire, however it would be my response that
violent and amoral people can act with a common purpose in the same way
that gentle and upstanding ones can. Please don't get me wrong. "Moral
character" is a wonderful thing, and we should strive to instill it in
our children. All I was trying to do was question the (IMHO) alarmist
premise that our nation is doomed unless we find our way back to the
"kinder, gentler" wholesome America as depicted in Norman Rockwell
prints.

    I would agree (as did Machiavelli) with the statement that it's very
difficult for an amoral people to maintain their liberty, and thus the
growing tendency towards amoral teenagers doesn't bode well for our
present form of government or the freedoms it gives us. But I just don't
think that all the doom and gloom predictions that I've been hearing
in the last few days are justified.

    In the same way that Rush maintains that what we do to the environment
will not "destroy the planet", I would maintain that what barbaric teens
do to each other will not destroy our nation.

>  And if
>you do disagree with me, would you like to live in that society?

    Not particularly, but since you asked that question can I take it
that you would agree that it *will* be a society of some form or other?
(i.e.- even if the system of government is overthrown, the people and much
of the culture will endure; remember please that I'm in "dispassionate
historical analysis" mode)

>> As long as the inherent tendency towards
>> violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing
>> as a nation are fairly good.

>Sure!  But who will want continue putting up with anarchy?  A nation
>is more than a random collection of human beings!  The nation,
>today, is being pulled apart by the seams, by special interest
>groups, and you sit back and evaluate the prospects of our society
>surviving as "fairly good"...I'm sorry, but I hope you are in a distant
>minority of this country.

    I have no doubt that I am in a minority; perhaps even in a singularity.
But ours is not the first nation to be torn apart by the seams. Under some
circumstances it can be terminally fatal; for example, if neighboring
barbarians could take advantage of the political turmoil to invade and
conquer. At this point, however, I don't see either Canada or Mexico as
military threats capable of anything like that.

    Please, make no mistake. I agree that the trends towards violence and
amorality are indicators of future political turmoil. It might be ugly now,
but IMHO it's likely to get worse before it gets better. As with similar
upheavals in the past, lots of people are likely to assume room temperature
in the process. I'm not saying that any of that is a good thing, and given
the choice I would just as soon not go through it, but I certainly don't see
it as the end of all things.

>> If you would like to make the argument that
>> the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at
>> least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence
>> we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival
>> as a nation.

>Okay!  But do not continue with the "threat" statement...it clouds the
>point.  I would rather LIVE than only SURVIVE, as you seem to propose.

    Well, I would agree that my "threat" analysis clouds your point, but
can you see that it is central to mine? You and I are not so different.
I too would prefer to see our nation thrive and prosper, and I agree with
you that the current indications are not very promising in that respect.
The main difference between us as far as I can see is that you seem to feel
that the turmoil ahead of us is an unthinkable end of civilization as we
know it, whereas I prefer to view it as just a continuation of a cyclic
pattern which has been in motion since the dawn of human history.

    Maybe my faith in human resiliency is just greater than yours; I
believe that when our civilization faces the challenges of the future
it will prevail. The fact that it will involve suffering is certainly
deplorable, but that's just part of the human condition.

>You are part of the problem!  Where are your standards?

    Thanks very much, I'm sure. The last time I checked my standards were
intact to the point that I do not personally go out and murder people, and
I find no trouble in condemning those who do. Neither do I rape or pillage.
I'm not sure what else you want from me besides that. I get the feeling
that you would prefer that I should wail and gnash my teeth at the thought
of our modern descent into barbarism, but I just can't do it.

>Are you happy being a victim of this mess.

    Not particularly, but I make it a point to look forward to the
challenges of the future with a positive rational outlook.

>The insane idea you have about putting up with any level of violence is
>absurd.

    Yes, that *is* absurd, however I'm not sure just where you got the
idea that I'm proposing that we should put up with any level of violence.
I have nothing against the idea of fighting crime, or of trying to educate
our young people to be gentle and kind rather than violent and brutal.

>Until we as a society reestablish standards and moral guidelines, how do
>we keep the violence from getting worse?  I do not want to live in YOUR
>world!

    To be honest with you, I'm not exactly certain what we can or should
do to keep the violence from getting worse. It might be a nice start if
we could do something to limit childrens' exposure to graphic images of
violence which they see practically every day on TV. You can push standards
and moral guidelines all you want, but when people go into a theater and
watch Arnold Schwartzeneger blow Sharon Stone's brains out with the line
"Consider that a divorce", and when those same kind, gentle, moral people
*cheer* the killing, I have little faith that your sermons about morals
and standards are actually achieving what you want.

    In other words, I'm not convinced that the lack of moral standards
really lies at the root of this problem. IMHO the root cause is that our
young people are being bombarded with the glorification of violence.

>> It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors
>> whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point
>> I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.

>You have obviously not been privy to first-hand violence recently!
>I do not mean to be obnoxious, but where is the common sense in
>your passive attitude.  Is anyone responsible for anything?!

    Yes, in my opinion people are responsible for their own actions. People
who commit violent crimes are responsible for what they've done. People
who indirectly promote violence through their "cultural" and "artistic"
contributions are also indirectly responsible. But I do not commit violent
crimes, nor do I make movies glorifying violence, nor do I condone acts
of violence when they occur.

    I appreciate that you do not mean to be obnoxious or to misunderstand
what I've been saying, but I do not have a passive attitude and I believe
that there's a damn sight more common sense in taking a rational analytical
approach to history than there is in making a bunch of unfounded accusations
and alarmist gloom-and-doom predictions based purely on the gut reaction of
being revulsed by violence.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
[e-mail]      [e-mail]