Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Terror and positive reinforcement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Ignoramus Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-24-06 04:06 PM
Original message
Terror and positive reinforcement
In training doggies there is a notion that it is useful to reinforce their positive behavior rather than punishing their bad behavior. I think it makes sense. If a dog just learns to behave based on fear of being punished, you don't really have a happy cooperating pet.

With respect to people, punishment for killing doesn't have any inherent value. Punishing Hezbollah or Hamas or Israel or etc. doesn't bring any dead people back. The notion of credit/debt with respect to killing is pretty horrific too. The notion that someone is holier than someone else and so they should be allowed to kill some number of people because they've earned credit is not good. I think it should be obvious that we are all morally equivalent. As some scribe adulterated the bible: "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

The notion of killing the killers is non-sensical as well, because it's not possible to find them all. So, completely eliminating Hezbollah is non-sensical, unless the actual goal is to promote permanent war.

So, shouldn't it be encouraged to invite "terrorists" to have political power. Shouldn't it be considered positive that Hamas are elected.

Right now "terrorists" are unaccountable bodies. The violence in Lebanon and Israel, is effectively between Israel and Lebanon, since they are the two populations being attacked, yet the political dispute is between an accountable body in the violence (Israel the government) and an unaccountable body in the violence (Hezbollah the group).

Instead of calling for the destruction of Hezbollah, wouldn't it be better to call for a cease fire and call for perpetual negotiation? The ones promoting negotiation would take the lead in not retaliating against attacks.

Let me predict that an argument would be that Hezbollah will not negotiate. My answer is that during the violence, there isn't a good option and a bad option, there is only a bad option (Hezbollah kills people in a non-retaliating Israel, in a deescalating spiral) and a worse option (Hezbollah or the people rising to avenge Hezbollah, kill people in a retaliating Israel, and Arabs get killed too, in an escalating spiral).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC