0

My morals have declined since I mostly watch the news on TV. I need to take a vacation from all that biased news journalism.

0

For that matter, psychology is a lot like rap. There's a lot of crap being spouted, and some insightful stuff as well, and the many of those spouting it get paid huge amounts whether it's good or bad, insightful or bunk.

Like so many other things, psychology is a tool, but it is not "the answer" (duh) .. as a means for looking for answers it's exactly no more than that. As for the answers it provides, well, all too often they are over simplified, as we so often are inclined to do.

0

My morals have declined since I mostly watch the news on TV. I need to take a vacation from all that biased news journalism.

My mother watches the news like some people go to church. I, on the other hand, never watch it. I don't watch more than a few minutes of it, I don't read more than a few paragraphs a week. I don't care to fill my mind with the pap that passes for news, but is little more than entertainment comprised of bias, disinformation, propaganda and big-buck interests.

My conclusion is that news is like avacados. You like them or you don't, and no one suffers overt consequences from indulging or avoiding them.

I can make a case against watching the news, but I won't in this post.

What I'm saying, is good for you, if you take the vacation. I have rarely indulged in watching or reading "the news", and I feel I'm marginally better off for it. I learn what I need to know from the people around me.

0

>I learn what I need to know from the people around me.
How is that any different? You're still learning things as another person or persons choose to present them to you. You might feel morally superior, but the end result is likely going to be the same. If you want to learn the truth, accept as many possible sources as possible, but with a grain of salt. Then form your own opinion. Cutting out a source because you don't agree with it is closed-minded and stupid in my opinion.

The only people who are damaged by biased news are the ones who couldn't think for themselves in the first place.

0

>> I learn what I need to know from the people around me.
Do these people watch "the news"? What's even worse is that this 'news' will be passed to you through another source, which will mean it will become even more inaccurate, distorted and yet you're "marginally better off for it"?!

If you want the truth don't limit yourself to one source, as Naure said.

0

>> I learn what I need to know from the people around me.
Do these people watch "the news"? What's even worse is that this 'news' will be passed to you through another source, which will mean it will become even more inaccurate, distorted and yet you're "marginally better off for it"?!

If you want the truth don't limit yourself to one source, as Naure said.

"What I need to know" (from the people around me) with the emphasis in "need" .. which as far as news goes, is very little.

But in the simplest sense, sometimes I just enter a conversation where "the news" is the current topic, and, to converse with these people, I need to know the subject at hand. So I hear from them what I need to know to have the conversation. That is, assuming I want to have it at all, which for the most part, I don't.

But if, for example, they are talking about the latest police shooting in our town, I will probably want to know "what went down" and whether it was appropriate. (Our police are pretty trigger happy). This matters to me, as I have a son who is "out there" where he could get shot by them based on some of the things he does, and some of the people he knows. So, upon hearing from people that yet another person got shot in a situation that might not have warranted it, I am interested, and will discuss it if it comes up. Then, I will probably do some research, and read what is written about it. Then, I can discuss it knowlegeably with my kid.

Likewise, if there is another pointless bypass or overpass being discussed (in the name of safety, but probably in reality to create access to someones land for industrial growth) then I will follow that story, lodge my opinions, and get on with life. Etc.

0

Back to the topic, if you watch convulsed news presented by the likes of Nancy Grace, or Rita Cosby, your morals and your brains get damaged.

0

>I learn what I need to know from the people around me.
How is that any different? You're still learning things as another person or persons choose to present them to you. You might feel morally superior, but the end result is likely going to be the same. If you want to learn the truth, accept as many possible sources as possible, but with a grain of salt. Then form your own opinion. Cutting out a source because you don't agree with it is closed-minded and stupid in my opinion.

The only people who are damaged by biased news are the ones who couldn't think for themselves in the first place.

Morally superior? Don't project on me, please. You don't know me at all.

Our lives are filled with meaningless input from myriad sources. I have better things to do with my time than to fill it with "the news". (period)

Everyone is damaged by biased news, and calling them (or me) stupid does you no good.

We have too much to sift through to find the truth. It's been buried for very real reasons. I challenge you to prove what Bush did or did not know, and to provide unbiased, immutable, conclusive evidence of it. I challenge you to prove who killed Bhutto. I challenge you to prove that Al Queda acted alone in 911, or that they did not. I challenge you to show me who is benefitting from any one of the immense issues before us, whether globally or nationally, or even locally, on either side of the issue.

I operate from the basis of principles, not news.

News is almost always propaganda, bias, or agenda based, or little more important than "fluff" / entertainment. That which we call importantnews, is most often a "shell game" is being played by both sides of a given issue, where in fact, the "real" issues are not even being put on the table. (In case you aren't familiar with the "pea and three shells" game where you are asked to watch, then determine which shell the pea is under, ... it's not under any of the shells, it is removed by sleight of hand and you have no chance of winning the game at all.) The news is often like that, both "sides" playing the game with us in the middle, neither side putting the more important underlying issues on the table.

Granted, an intelligent person can often see through this. But I put to you that people are not "stupid" just because they are damaged by a multi-trillion dollar "machine" that has highly refined its skills in duping them ... with the last 50 years or so marking a huge departure from honest reporting to what it is today. Most people, have an awful lot on their plates, and do not have the time to dig for the truth, let alone to dig deeper and see the shell game. They are damaged, and not because they are stupid.

Your propensity to call me, and any who do not share in your point of view "closed minded, stupid, and unable to think for themselves" shows a lack of insight into the mind and condition of your fellow man.

Many people don't share your point of view or your way of approaching life. That does not, in itself, indicate that they are what you call some of them. Learning that will help. At least, it helped me when I learned it.

Principles underly all human actions, and I have some very well defined principles. My principles are offended by

0

Back to the topic, if you watch convulsed news presented by the likes of Nancy Grace, or Rita Cosby, your morals and your brains get damaged.

Ah, well there we go. I have no idea who those people are. Sounds like "lucky me" to me.

Hey, maybe you could sue them for brain damage. Maybe a class action thing?

Okay, okay.

0

>I have better things to do with my time than to fill it with "the news". (period)
Perhaps closed-minded is too tactful on my part. You strike me more as willfully ignorant.

>I challenge you to prove <snip challenges that require omniscience>
You can use irrelevant objections and edjumucated talk to deflect my pointed question, but in the end you still haven't explained what the difference is between biased news broadcasts and biased people.

>My principles are offended by
You probably want to edit your post, it looks like your rhetoric was cut short.

1

>I have better things to do with my time than to fill it with "the news". (period)
Perhaps closed-minded is too tactful on my part. You strike me more as willfully ignorant.

>I challenge you to prove <snip challenges that require omniscience>
You can use irrelevant objections and edjumucated talk to deflect my pointed question, but in the end you still haven't explained what the difference is between biased news broadcasts and biased people.

Narue, with all respect for the warm, thoughtful and caring person you may be, you strike me as being set on insulting rather than understanding.

It's creepy: that you would choose to call me "closed minded", and then suggest that the lable is "too tactful", and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts.

Because, you apparently do not understand what I have written. And, it would seem that you have a point of view that is challenged by my opposing one, and can only insult me rather than try to comprehend my reasoning.

However, "willfully ignorant" is literally correct. That I choose to be ignorant of something that you consider to be concerned about sets us apart, yes, but not in the ways you find it convenient to state.

There is nothing irrelevant about my challenges to you, in fact, your answer makes my point, which is that you cannot ferret out the truth from the news, and thus, one is not stupid for not being able to do so.

But that choose to insult me for those challenges only shows, (in part,) who you are.

As for you asking me to explain the difference between biased news and biased people, ... The news is the work of people. Get it? I not, I cannot help.

It seems to me that you really have not even tried to understand a word I have written, you have simply insulted them because you don't like my underlying message. Clearly, it inflames you. Why is that? (I don't expect you to be able to answer that accurately, thus far you have not exhibited the qualities of one who has thought about those sorts of things.)

My observation is that the world is much more full of people like you than people like me. I suspect we are both glad of that.

Votes + Comments
*Perhaps you are insecure* - that's gold, you know her well, are you Mr Narue by any chance? :P
0

I wouldn't mind getting back to discussing the topic and putting our personal differences aside.

0

I wouldn't mind getting back to discussing the topic and putting our personal differences aside.

Perhaps I have to learn to not respond to personal attacks. But I keep trying, because those who insult rather than discuss (including myself if I do it) could benefit from some reason.

By all means, lead on.

0

She does it to everyone. You seem like a smart person and you are able to articulate yourself well, just ignore it.

I think morals have declined. Why, I'll need a little longer to think about that :P

0

Yes I agree, playing ego games, are dull at best.

Calling it ego games is not accurate. Insulting is never a good thing, and Narue has resorted to that. I am interested in seeing if she will ultimately take a look at her behavior and yield to common sense / reason.

It's not that I expect everyone, or even anyone to like what I hve to say, but I'm always ready to supply the reasoning and logic behind it.

If all she wants to do is insult, fine, I'll quit when that's patently clear. But please, don't blame me for trying, or reduce my efforts (or hers) to the lable of ego games. That is in itself another insult to the both of us.

0

She does it to everyone. You seem like a smart person and you are able to articulate yourself well, just ignore it.

Oh, okay, thanks. I haven't been around long enough to see her before. I always try to reason with people before I give up.

0

She does it to everyone. You seem like a smart person and you are able to articulate yourself well, just ignore it.

I think morals have declined. Why, I'll need a little longer to think about that :P

Maybe the morals have always been about what they are, but they're just a LOT more visible?

I still see a lot of really great people about, going on about their lives much as people have for as long as I've been around. Yes, life is much busier and more complex than when I was young but people haven't changed much as I see it. There's always been good and bad, kind and cruel, pleasant and gross.

But where you used to have only a few, now you have many. There are 3 times as many people on this planet today as there were when I was born. And most of them are in the heavy population centers. And, they can all hear (about) each other, and see what each other is up to. Familiarity with behavior breeds apathy towards it as well as a tendency to pick it up. That's a normal human response. That said, the fact that there certainly is more (of everything) going on does not indicate to me that there is more or less morality.

Maybe we should define morality first?

2

> Maybe we should define morality first
That seems logical, how would you define that then Brian?

Ouch. I was hoping someone else would try that first. Let's agree that the dictionary is only of marginal help, and that we may feel a need to add to or otherwise modify what we see there, shall we?

That asked, here's a quick take from Dictionary.com on "morality"

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

But this list doesn't quite give me my starting point.

But this, from the same page: "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" does give me a starting point.

The word "ideas" in the phrase "ideas of right and wrong" is crucial, the phrase must not be confused with "right and wrong."

Jumping from there, I'll now offer this starting point: Moral behavior is that which is supportive of life and well being.

I'll add that if there were just one person alive, moral behavior would extend only towards him or herself, but given that there are many, it extends to all behavior that affects (at least) the lives and well being of humanity in general. Thus killing your neighbor, or any wanton destruction of any thing or process that enhances life is immoral.

However, we (people) have (long ago) extended the notion of immorality into behavior that may actually be in support of life, for example in some sexual behavior. IE, it is considered immoral by many to have sex and make babies with more than your spouse. Yet, lots of babies would seem to be supportive of the survival of mankind. (Maybe not, but its argueable.

So morality has taken on what I think of as an emotional slant that may not have anything to do with that which enhances life and well being. Thus, our idea of right and wrong behavior may not be supported by the facts.

I think, while addressing the issue of morality you also have to take in to consideration that the "intent" of the individual may not be accurately reflected in an assesment of his actions, thus he may be acting morally internally, but actually doing harm.

To wrap this up, I say the moral behavior is that which supports life and well being. I question whether we "should" support emotional - knee jerk responses, or otherwise unsupported or unsupportable ideas of what is right or wrong.

Should we follow the whims of our current social context in determining what is moral? I think not. Society often disagrees with my take on what constitutes immoral behavior.

Votes + Comments
You have far more patience with Narue than I do.
good post
0

>and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts
And what point are you trying to make here?

0

>and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts
And what point are you trying to make here?

I am sorry you do not understand, but I won't try to help you any further. Perhaps if you ask someone to explain it to you that would help.

I am done with you, you have wasted my time.

I truly hope someone has benefited by your being here. From what I've seen, it won't have been you.

There is life outside your bubble.

Added comment:

That said, oh, sheesh ... I get it .. this, from your web site:

[So what's this confuzzled stuff anyway? Confuzzlement is a glorious state of being that involves a lot of confusion, frustration, and maybe a little bit of raving lunacy. In a good way, of course. Confuzzled people celebrate their ignorance openly and strive to reach a higher level of ignorance by learning from other confuzzled people. A confuzzled person is proud to be ignorant, but the unwashed masses are often incapable of seeing the subtle difference between being brilliantly clever, pretending to be stupid because you can't be bothered to think, and being genuinely stupid. They key to being confuzzled is having fun with it.]

Just funnin me, eh? I can see you are much smarter than your posts to me would indicate. You cannot be as obtuse as you act. (can you??)

Well, I'll say this for you, you can certainly be obnoxious. I won't suggest that you keep it up.

0

What does it feel like to be so full of yourself?

Go away, leave me alone, or not. You are useless to me.

0

rap music? anyone

These are my unfettered thoughts, provided with no supporting data: (I am usually willing to go the distance to support my opinions, but this is more in the realm of "What if?)"

While I shudder to think of rap as music, it falls into the realm.

Like all music, it is a result of a variety of forces. Of course, it often reflects the sensibilities of the times, and is often nothing much more than a marketing effort (Brittany Spears, anyone?)

But let us not forget that it provides an outlet for all of the emotions, including (but not limited to) love, rage, and rebellion. Does anyone remember how our parents felt about Elvis? They shuddered. And then, folk music and its progression into "protest" music? And, I'm here to tell you that Bob Dylan was not making fans of the over 30 crowd for the first several years.

Who of you are old enough to remember the drug songs of the 60s and 70s? Our parents were understandably concerned. Listening to he music, you'd have thought we were all going to die of drug overdose at the very least. And we listened to it with glee and joy, and with a certain guilty pleasure; that we were living a life that our parents forbid.

While many of us did the drugs, most of us didn't do them to the degree that the music suggested, and the musicins implored, if you will, by thier life-styles. Damned few of us went the way of Joplin and Hendrix, or for many of the others who were into coke and heroin, etc. (or at least we did not go all the way.)

I think the same is now true of rap. Sure, there's a lot of disrespect and hate in it, but reading between the lines, at least from most of what I've heard, it is almost a parody of a life style, of what we "older folk" fear. As much as anything, they are making fun of us and our sensibilities. Of course that's not all that's happening, but it is part of it. Kids simply want to do something, anything, that their parents dislike, particularly if they don't believe it will harm them.

Who's to say what harm is done, at least how much? And who is to say it would no have simply taken another form?

Kids died from drug overdoses in the 60s and 70s to be sure, and some of them were living beyond their capacities "because" at least in part, of the music itself. But we more or less survived. Many of those that were harmed might well have simply been into booze and fast cars instead of drugs. Who knows what else?

Some kids will certainly exhibit violence that was influenced by the songs they hear. But there's a LOT more going on behind that violence than rap.

Rap, at most, only serves to enforce what's already festering. I would not be surprised if rap actually does more good than harm, by providing an outlet for the angst that kids feel, so they don't keep it bottled up. By listening to it, they can keep it at bay, let it out slowly, and learn to deal with it.

For some, it's just a feeling they get from the songs, just as Dylan often didn't really make any sense, but we "got" the feeling of the song, and loved it. He mixed truth with nonsense for an emotional ride that had no par. And there was no shortage of imagery that offended the sensibilities of the elders.

Back to today, sure, we've had school shootings, and some of the shooters undoubtedly listened to rap. But I'd be willing to bet that they were bombs waiting to blow regardless of the music they listened to. Our societal probems go much deeper than our musical content.

Kids will probably listen to music thier parents hate forever. They will until we learn how to rise above the darker aspects of our human nature, and how to impart that to our young at a very early age. I don't see it unfolding that way, yet.

0

By schools, I didn't mean elementary, or even high schools. I meant college. I mean God, pyschology isn't available at Elementary school, is it?

Psychology as a separate subject in the elementary and high schools? No. But, there are subjects (like Assembly) which do involve topics related to it. And talking about the undergraduate level, that is not the end of the entire subject, not even half of it..

The differences in our views have arisen due to our different backgrounds, scru. I just meant that understanding the psychology of kids is a handy tool in such issues.

0

Ur Shmart

No, not really...

Votes + Comments
I don't understand why this particular post was downrepped.
cut out the name calling will you. Well...what may be morally right to me may be wrong to you because your a christian...so while while sex before marriage is fine with me....christians would have problem with that..just as an example.
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.