Society creates Deviance

[Flavus Aquila]

In establishing legitimate/reasonable norms for a society, I think the question of objectivity is not so important as authority.

Almost no society claims that its laws/norms are objectively absolutely right/good - but simply that they are not unreasonable (for the functioning of the society) and that they are legitimate - ie. established and enforced by the state's authority.

Indeed, only religious institutions / religions claim an objective morality - and this only in very few articles (which may be elaborated into many particular instances) - eg. ten commandments.

So returning to societies, rules cannot be acceptable unless promulgated by the state authority - because only that authority has responsibility for the state as a whole. Otherwise, every man and his dog would be promulgating contradictory laws.

As for reasonableness, there is no objective reason why a country should designate one side of the road or another for traffic flow. However, it is reasonable that all vehicles should use only one side of the road for travel - otherwise transport could not function. Similarly, pedastry should be outlawed because whether a child can decide or not, that child does not have either the experience/knowledge to understand the full significance and consequences of such actions. Moreover, children do not have the means to resist coercion towards such actions, which an adults have, exposing them to exploitation. Ultimately, there may be the occasional case, where a minor's sexual liberties are enfringed upon by the laws of the state, but this is nevertheless a reasonalbe infringement in light of the bad/abuse which is averted by the same laws.

Living in society gives one benefits which one could not have otherwise, but it also demands giving up some freedoms which one could have outside society. Society is the compromise between the needs of the many and the needs of the one. (Capt. Spock comes to mind ).

 

[Satya]

Similarly, pedastry should be outlawed because whether a child can decide or not, that child does not have either the experience/knowledge to understand the full significance and consequences of such actions. Moreover, children do not have the means to resist coercion towards such actions, which an adults have, exposing them to exploitation. Ultimately, there may be the occasional case, where a minor's sexual liberties are enfringed upon by the laws of the state, but this is nevertheless a reasonalbe infringement in light of the bad/abuse which is averted by the same laws.

Agreed for this society at this time. In ancient Greece and edo period Japan, children would have acquired a sexual education at a much younger age (as these were very sexualized societies) and pedestry served as an institution where coercion would not have been tolerated. So I think the child protectoin laws that exist are reasonable and legiitmate for our particular culture since it is fairly repressed due to its Judeo-Christian ethic.

Living in society gives one benefits which one could not have otherwise, but it also demands giving up some freedoms which one could have outside society. Society is the compromise between the needs of the many and the needs of the one. (Capt. Spock comes to mind ).

The liberty economy as some people like to call it.

 

[Duty]

That's why I try not to think too much into it.
There is nothing that is immoral.
It's more of a...pet peeve.

If I knew you, I'd be sorely tempted into the "common sense argument" against this. A kick in the shin and knife in your car tire may convince otherwise.

I'm not that much an ass though.

 

[slant]

If I knew you, I'd be sorely tempted into the "common sense argument" against this. A kick in the shin and knife in your car tire may convince otherwise.

I'm not that much an ass though.

If I had a car. I really don't plan on owning one. Too lazy.

One thing I have noticed about the typical INTP type which is completely biased since I only know one INTP in my personal affairs is that you threaten and threaten but never deliver .

:smash:

:smash:

I, on the otherhand, wouldn't hesitate to smash your computer...Twice.

 

[acd]

Reminds me of a passage in Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia.. that was mentioned in the movie Ever After (ahaha!)

"If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?"

 

[firehotemily]

I see that society as a whole does give a norm.
but i do not think someone is born evil/devious, yes there are more that tend to be like this, like kids that do pranks more than others.
But i do not think that someone is innately deviant. Either they are taught in a certain way to think that being deviant is okay or good, or they have a mental illness etc...

 

[Duty]

If I had a car. I really don't plan on owning one. Too lazy.

One thing I have noticed about the typical INTP type which is completely biased since I only know one INTP in my personal affairs is that you threaten and threaten but never deliver .

:smash:

:smash:

I, on the otherhand, wouldn't hesitate to smash your computer...Twice.

There was a point in my post...I wasn't actually threatening.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

There are deviants and then there are deviants.

**Acknowledging that I am only a new whipper-snapper here, commenting on founding/senior members of the forum**

This forum is lucky to have a couple of deviants who do not destroy the cohesion or peace of this forum. In fact, if it weren't for Shai Gar, Uberrogo and a few others this place would be pretty dull.

 

[Duty]

There are deviants and then there are deviants.

**Acknowledging that I am only a new whipper-snapper here, commenting on founding/senior members of the forum**

This forum is lucky to have a couple of deviants who do not destroy the cohesion or peace of this forum. In fact, if it weren't for Shai Gar, Uberrogo and a few others this place would be pretty dull.

The difference is that the governing body doesn't arrest, try, and convict us for "deviant" behavior that isn't really anything bad: see the man arrested for feeding the homeless thread.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Why didn't that guy just get the permit?

It's stupid - having to get a permit to feed large groups of homeless - but it isn't unreasonable.

What if the reason for the law is that a group of homeless got food poisoning from poor food-handling protocols? Or what if people were disrupting pedestrian traffic by setting up soup kitchens at the wrong place/time - eg. in the middle of CBD streets during rush-hour?

At a glance (a very quick glance, so I may have made a mistake) the guy in the middle of the homeless feeding situation just seems to be rebelling for the sake of rebelling - not because the laws/permits are unreasonable.

 

[Duty]

Why didn't that guy just get the permit?

It's stupid - having to get a permit to feed large groups of homeless - but it isn't unreasonable.

What if the reason for the law is that a group of homeless got food poisoning from poor food-handling protocols? Or what if people were disrupting pedestrian traffic by setting up soup kitchens at the wrong place/time - eg. in the middle of CBD streets during rush-hour?

At a glance (a very quick glance, so I may have made a mistake) the guy in the middle of the homeless feeding situation just seems to be rebelling for the sake of rebelling - not because the laws/permits are unreasonable.

Well, put another example in there then, history is full of governments oppressing those who are "deviant," either sexually, religiously, or some other way which harms no one else.

 

[Pristinegirl]

1. Law is different from justice

2. Consider the fanatic cases from the 60's where children who were not "idealistic" had to go through lobotomies, which had the problem solved but had them mentally retarded to get there. That is oppression!

I think the same can be seen in todays society with e.g. hyperactive children = dole out meds, have a quick fix and the problem is 'solved'.

 

[Duty]

1. Law is different from justice

The goal of law is to create and properly enforce a set of rules that are just.

2. Consider the fanatic cases from the 60's where children who were not "idealistic" had to go through lobotomies, which had the problem solved but had them mentally retarded to get there. That is oppression!

I think the same can be seen in todays society with e.g. hyperactive children = dole out meds, have a quick fix and the problem is 'solved'.

Oh, agreed. I grew up with my parents dead set on the view that I was screwed up and deviant, instead of just trying to understand that I'm different. I followed this point of view until I discovered MBTI actually...I wasn't autistic, or ADD, or rebellious...I just was a personality type vastly different from the majority. It wasn't an issue of being right or wrong...just outnumbered.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Well, put another example in there then, history is full of governments oppressing those who are "deviant," either sexually, religiously, or some other way which harms no one else.

Historically, morals/ethics were considered far more important than they are now. In part this is because there used not be the police/legals system there is now. So for a society to function a lot, and I mean A LOT of pressure was put on the populace to behave. Punishments were severe because if a trend towards rebellion began, it could literally weaken a state in weeks to the point that enemies could easily invade.

Some other historical laws, particularly those regarding reproduction, often presumed the failure to have children as a disservice to the state. Medicine was not what it is now and wars/conflicts could quickly wipe out a significant percentage of a population. It was therefore absolutely necessary that citizens have as many children as possible. Any 'perversion' such as bestiality or sodomy was sometimes even treated as virtual treason.

In essence, historically, simply 'not doing anything harmful' was below what was expected of most citizens. Citizens were expected to do quite a lot more, than we are, to support/assist the state. Failure to benefit the state would often carry punishments, such as exile.

A famous attempt to revive something of the old world mentality is captured in JFK's famous exhortation: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

 

[Satya]

Historically, morals/ethics were considered far more important than they are now. In part this is because there used not be the police/legals system there is now. So for a society to function a lot, and I mean A LOT of pressure was put on the populace to behave. Punishments were severe because if a trend towards rebellion began, it could literally weaken a state in weeks to the point that enemies could easily invade.

Some other historical laws, particularly those regarding reproduction, often presumed the failure to have children as a disservice to the state. Medicine was not what it is now and wars/conflicts could quickly wipe out a significant percentage of a population. It was therefore absolutely necessary that citizens have as many children as possible. Any 'perversion' such as bestiality or sodomy was sometimes even treated as virtual treason.

You are speaking mostly of Western culture. Judeo Christian ethics have a long history of travesty. The Native Americans can testify to it. Cultures of the East, like Japan and China didn't have laws against sodomy until they were exposed to western religion.

In essence, historically, simply 'not doing anything harmful' was below what was expected of most citizens. Citizens were expected to do quite a lot more, than we are, to support/assist the state. Failure to benefit the state would often carry punishments, such as exile.

A famous attempt to revive something of the old world mentality is captured in JFK's famous exhortation: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

By "Old World" I'm assuming you mean old America and not Europe. People who weren't merchants or nobles were seen as belonging to the land back in Old World Europe. They didn't have a choice whether they served or not. They worked or they starved.