Kansas man in 'get out of my country' shooting of Indian man appears in court

[pegman]

Turn off the CCTV system. Take him behind the jail house and dispense with him with a .22 slug behind the left ear.

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Once again, I merely describe things from a sociological perspective. You are pressuring me to show outrage over a murder. The law should take its course over that, I am more concerned with understanding the underlying issues with a view to preventing such things in future.

 

All societies contain thuggish individuals. Evolution evidently selects for aggressiveness in part of the population for a purpose - they are society's soldier ants - literally soldiers in many cases. They get pushed to the front to do the fighting when necessary. Understand too that everyone wants such thugs in their society to protect them when the need arises - such as during war. In the meantime, they need to be controlled because they can indeed be dangerous.

 

So, having established that such people exist in all societies, now we need to understand their motivation. The key to understanding much of human behaviour is insecurity, which may be subliminal but is always there and is far-reaching. Insecurity produces aggression, especially in the thugs who don't control themselves by intellect. Competition for resources (jobs, status, housing, etc) present a threat - not necessarily on an individual level but for their kind  and their social group. Like it or not, society competes one group against another and will create groups deliberately (religious sects are an example) in order to create competition when it doesn't exist. Anyway, the simple equation if you like is: thuggishness + threat = violence.

 

My observation is inter-group competition is good, healthy, and progressive up to a certain level. Beyond a certain level it becomes a perceived threat, and beyond that it becomes a clear and present threat. The solution is either to breed out all the thugs out of society - a long-term eugenics programme that presumably all liberals would go for, or more realistically to minimise the threat, which in this case is to manage the threat from competing groups at 'sustainable' (non-threatening) levels.

 

This concludes the analysis.

"The solution is either to breed out all the thugs out of society .... or more realistically to minimise the threat, which in this case is to manage the threat from competing groups at 'sustainable' (non-threatening) levels."

 

An incomplete solution.  The long-term solution is to integrate new groups into society.  There were discriminatory "us versus them" attitudes which often turned violent directed against Irish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, and all other large immigrant populations.  The discrimination against these groups has almost disappeared.  The US is good at integration, people in Europe I've talked to are often surprised to learn that Roma/Gypsies live normal lives in the US.

 

Of course integration requires that immigrants be kept safe from well-armed morons and not be alienated by government policies directed at them.

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Once again, I merely describe things from a sociological perspective. You are pressuring me to show outrage over a murder. The law should take its course over that, I am more concerned with understanding the underlying issues with a view to preventing such things in future.

 

All societies contain thuggish individuals. Evolution evidently selects for aggressiveness in part of the population for a purpose - they are society's soldier ants - literally soldiers in many cases. They get pushed to the front to do the fighting when necessary. Understand too that everyone wants such thugs in their society to protect them when the need arises - such as during war. In the meantime, they need to be controlled because they can indeed be dangerous.

 

So, having established that such people exist in all societies, now we need to understand their motivation. The key to understanding much of human behaviour is insecurity, which may be subliminal but is always there and is far-reaching. Insecurity produces aggression, especially in the thugs who don't control themselves by intellect. Competition for resources (jobs, status, housing, etc) present a threat - not necessarily on an individual level but for their kind  and their social group. Like it or not, society competes one group against another and will create groups deliberately (religious sects are an example) in order to create competition when it doesn't exist. Anyway, the simple equation if you like is: thuggishness + threat = violence.

 

My observation is inter-group competition is good, healthy, and progressive up to a certain level. Beyond a certain level it becomes a perceived threat, and beyond that it becomes a clear and present threat. The solution is either to breed out all the thugs out of society - a long-term eugenics programme that presumably all liberals would go for, or more realistically to minimise the threat, which in this case is to manage the threat from competing groups at 'sustainable' (non-threatening) levels.

 

This concludes the analysis.

Catholic immigrants used to be regarded by lots of people in the USA the way that Muslims are now by some. Yet somehow, without the aid of eugenics Catholics are accepted by virtually all other Americans as Americans.  And what do you mean by "manage the threat from competing groups at 'sustainable levels.'  If you mean law enforcement - and what else could you mean - who would disagree? Apart from the thugs, that is. Of course, the use of the phrase "competing groups" is nicely vague. Do you mean economically competing or some other kind of competing? And what does "sustainable levels" mean? That we should accept some violence and as long as it stays at a certain level do nothing about it? Or enforce the laws strictly and accept that you can never completely eliminate crime?

[simple1]

51 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Once again, I merely describe things from a sociological perspective. You are pressuring me to show outrage over a murder. The law should take its course over that, I am more concerned with understanding the underlying issues with a view to preventing such things in future.

 

All societies contain thuggish individuals. Evolution evidently selects for aggressiveness in part of the population for a purpose - they are society's soldier ants - literally soldiers in many cases. They get pushed to the front to do the fighting when necessary. Understand too that everyone wants such thugs in their society to protect them when the need arises - such as during war. In the meantime, they need to be controlled because they can indeed be dangerous.

 

So, having established that such people exist in all societies, now we need to understand their motivation. The key to understanding much of human behaviour is insecurity, which may be subliminal but is always there and is far-reaching. Insecurity produces aggression, especially in the thugs who don't control themselves by intellect. Competition for resources (jobs, status, housing, etc) present a threat - not necessarily on an individual level but for their kind  and their social group. Like it or not, society competes one group against another and will create groups deliberately (religious sects are an example) in order to create competition when it doesn't exist. Anyway, the simple equation if you like is: thuggishness + threat = violence.

 

My observation is inter-group competition is good, healthy, and progressive up to a certain level. Beyond a certain level it becomes a perceived threat, and beyond that it becomes a clear and present threat. The solution is either to breed out all the thugs out of society - a long-term eugenics programme that presumably all liberals would go for, or more realistically to minimise the threat, which in this case is to manage the threat from competing groups at 'sustainable' (non-threatening) levels.

 

This concludes the analysis.

Pseudo interlectual cover for extremism