50512
Post by: Jihadin
The Boy Scouts of America, an organization with semi-military origins, has put out approved activities for its members, and water gun fights are strictly prohibited.
A blog for the organization’s leaders said May 6 that pointing simulated firearms at people is not allowed.
“Why the rule? A Scouter once told me this explanation I liked quite a bit: A Scout is kind. What part of pointing a firearm [simulated or otherwise] at someone is kind?” said Bryan Wendell on the scouting website.
The rule is clarified in the Boy Scouts of America National Shooting Manual, which says “For water balloons, use small, biodegradable balloons, and fill them no larger than a ping pong ball. […] Water guns and rubber band guns must only be used to shoot at targets, and eye protection must be worn.”
The manual includes a lengthy list of other prohibited items — boomerangs, crossbows, potato guns, spear guns and throwing stars. Scouts also may not use “marshmallow shooters that require placing a straw or similar device in the mouth.”
The Scouting movement began in the early 20th century Britain under the tutelage of Lt. Gen. Robert Baden-Powell, who wrote the first “Scouting for Boys” manual.
Baden-Powell learned from his military experiences in India and southern Africa that young soldiers often lacked outdoor-survival skills. He also cited the Mafeking Cadet Corps, a group of adolescent and pre-adolescent boys that he used to great success during the Second Boer War siege of that town. The boys eagerly took on such essential military duties as couriers and intelligence, freeing older soldiers for more-demanding tasks.
Numerous critical journalists and bloggers noted that Scouting when they were boys included such activities as bottle rockets, wooden sword fights and Midnight Football, which a Gawker author described as “a sort of combat rugby played in blackout conditions on a hard tile floor.”
Negative feedback flowed into the comments section of the blog, complaining of political correctness, of “turning boys into a bunch of wusses,” and of an out-of-touch national leadership.
“This makes BSA look ridiculous and has little if any impact on safety,” said Gary Holeiwnski.
“Sometimes I just have to laugh out loud at how idiotic some things in our society have become. We can’t squirt each other with water guns because it is a ‘simulated’ gun. I can’t believe BSA is so worried about the PC police that it has a policy like this,” added commenter Gary USMC.
“Yes, let’s carry every policy to the absurd extreme. That will certainly help scouts shed that geeky image,” added another commenter.
The Boy Scouts of America National Shooting Manual guidelines are to be followed by anyone involved with Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Venturing, Sea Scouting, or shooting sports committees, the document adds
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/boy-scouts-of-america-bans-water-gun-fights/#ixzz3ahNtm4z8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Next thing you know they go after first person shooters digital games. 
34390
Post by: whembly
And another reason why my boys aren't boys scouts.
Pathetic...
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
First of all, who gives a gak?
Also, this is from the Washington Times which is borderline Onion at this point. Of course they left out the part that this pointing a firearm (real or simulated) at another person hasn't been allowed in Scouts for years. But hey- why let that stop the feigned outrage over nothing!
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Water balloons the size of ping pong balls? Jeez, those'll hurt! Bigger is better (that's what she said!).
Also, no water guns...what about Super Soakers filled with Pepsi? Good times in middle school....
91292
Post by: DarkLink
When I was a boy scout, we went river rafting, and in the slow areas we'd jump on each other's rafts and "kindly" throw each other in the water.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
 DarkLink wrote:When I was a boy scout, we went river rafting, and in the slow areas we'd jump on each other's rafts and "kindly" throw each other in the water.
Yeah, but you were all safe because none of you were pointing gun-shaped sticks at each other at the time.
Contrast this with my time in the Indian Guides, when we were told to go out and make weapons (axes, bowes, knives) to burn in a giant bonfire fueled by hairspray soaked banners proclaiming the various tribes. Go Comanches!
25703
Post by: juraigamer
Well the best time to make gun shaped popsicles is right now, get on it people.
34390
Post by: whembly
 juraigamer wrote:Well the best time to make gun shaped popsicles is right now, get on it people.
Been there... done that:
http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Homewares-Gun-Cube-Tray/dp/B008BT587M
84813
Post by: inferno445
I'm a scout, and in my last troop where I lived in Pennsylvania, not only did we beat each other with sticks to the point that some of us bled but we also sat around the campfire telling offensive jokes, stories, etc. with our scoutmaster.
Then I moved south and suddenly I have to open a (denominational, but not sure which) Christian church service without being given an option. We never do anything remotely enjoyable while camping, making it an outdoor classroom instead of time to mess around and enjoy being outdoors, but I'm sticking with it because Eagle Scout looks great on a resume.
If I have a son, I'm not having/letting him join scouts unless they change some more policies, because lately I've realized all it does is enforce many values that I should already be able to show him, or things that I don't believe/think make no sense, like this water gun thing.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I see tomorrow male youths a bit "weak" willed
34390
Post by: whembly
I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Also, this is from the Washington Times which is borderline Onion at this point. Of course they left out the part that this pointing a firearm (real or simulated) at another person hasn't been allowed in Scouts for years. But hey- why let that stop the feigned outrage over nothing!
Most rules/regulations are set by local chapters.
I think CA has had it for flipping years.
I can see the policy stemming from the idea of gun-safety. Real gunz (or, in my case bb guns)we were drilled with proper gun safety and handling.
The OP is an overreaction, much in the same vein as that kid who got suspended for eating a Pop-tart into a shape of a gun.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Meanwhile on Russian scout camp:  Russia might be the other extreme end of the spectrum... But seriously, I do not understand why should you not allow boys to use water guns? A water gun is not a firearm, and using it on people can be very kind on hot days. If everyone is having fun, what is not kind about water guns? They arent dangerous.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Okay, Eagle Scout here (full disclosure).
My kneejerk at first was to groan about it for similar reasons to Whembly. Thinking further about it, I'm actually kind of ambivalent, and leaning toward the side of thinking it's not that big of a deal, or even a good idea, based upon a series of assumptions I'm making.
Assumption 1: Most boys who are playing with squirt guns are probably the younger ones. They probably won't have used real guns yet. Instilling in them that you don't point guns as people is probably not a bad thing because of assumption 2.
Assumption 2: At some point in their lives, guns will be introduced to them. I did all kinds of rifle/shotgun shooting from about the age of 14 on in the boy scouts. Having a sound sense of "hey, don't feth around with these things" is probably a good idea. I'm not suggesting that boys have an inability to distinguish the real things from the fake ones, simply that it's entirely believable that A boy might have the inability.
Thinking more about it, safety has also always been a super core part of the scouts. They're super uptight about these kids having knifes, and tend to jump their gak if they're even harmlessly out of line about it. I saw it happen to other screwballs that were 'just being boys'. I've always thought it a little excessive, but it's not like this doesn't track with that line of thinking, and that was 14-15 years ago.
There's plenty of other manly things the scouts do.
I did laugh at the water balloon thing. Ping pong ball? Really? That won't break. If anything, that'll hurt more bouncing off the person.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
There's a huge difference though between a super soaker and real "rifle".
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
 whembly wrote:
I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Quit acting like this (old) "rule" means that no Boy Scout can play with a water gun at any time regardless of whether or not he is at an official Scout function, because it isn't the case. I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout and do you know how many times we had water gun fights during a meeting? None. Do you know why? We were too busy learning things in our short meetings than to splash around in the water. When we went camping or canoeing we didn't lug water guns with us, because why the hell would we? I sure as hell wouldn't wanted to have lugged my big ass Super Soaker around in the woods all day. Seriously, get the feth over it.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
whembly wrote: I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Im sorry what? Also, I used to throw rocks in my boy scouts. When we where having Rock Wars, everyone would find a pebble. I found like giant river rocks and threw them
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.
Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...
I'm sure whembly has many more examples.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
whembly wrote:
I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Also, you get bonus points considering you made that statement on a website where grown men meet to talk about playing pretend battles with toy soldiers.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Grey Templar wrote:
Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.
Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...
.
No, thats just stupid, because we realized two things
1: Masculinity is not defined by violence and hurting people. Infact im surprised we came this far without realizing this
2: Masculinity itself is a socially constructed concept that changes over time.
Not to mention, we also realized toy guns and having people play pretend war is kinda creepy. Kinda indoctrinating actually
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Grey Templar wrote:Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.
No it really hasn't. Now, I know the people who feed you your media tell you otherwise but do you know what is cool to boys right now? The same gak that was cool when I was growing up in the 80s: superheros, dinosaurs, video games, chasing after cute girls, fast cars. You would know these things if you have children.
Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...
Well, when we have "realistic" look guns, cops shoot you. So Nerf guns are "brightly colored" now? Who gives a gak? I would have killed for a Nerf gun like this in the 80s:
I had to settle for this instead:
I'm sure whembly has many more examples.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Men have natural aggressive tendencies. There is nothing wrong with channeling them. Playing with toy weapons goes back thousands of years. Its perfectly natural.
Its basically saying that thousands of years of masculine ideals are totally wrong and not ok. Its not just saying alternatives are just as good, its actively saying that the established norm is actively bad. And that is wrong.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Y'know who else have natural aggressive tendencies?
Girls. go one ahead and threaten a moms baby. She will kill you.
I again state. Those natural aggressive tendencies are socially constructed ideals.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Grey Templar wrote:Men have natural aggressive tendencies. There is nothing wrong with channeling them. Playing with toy weapons goes back thousands of years. Its perfectly natural.
It isn't about aggression, it's about heroism, dominance, and being powerful... all things a small child is not. Those things can and should be separated from aggression.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know who else have natural aggressive tendencies?
Girls. go one ahead and threaten a moms baby. She will kill you.
I again state. Those natural aggressive tendencies are socially constructed ideals.
Socially constructed, over thousands of years. And across different cultures. Maybe there is an underlying aggressive masculine commonality which suggests its not all in the artificial social sphere, but a real basic state of being.
Men are more aggressive than women. This isn't debatable. Sure, women can become very aggressive. In very specific instances.
Playing with weapons and other mock violence isn't a bad thing. Its perfectly natural, and human society has functioned with it since forever. Automatically Appended Next Post:  ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Men have natural aggressive tendencies. There is nothing wrong with channeling them. Playing with toy weapons goes back thousands of years. Its perfectly natural.
It isn't about aggression, it's about heroism, dominance, and being powerful... all things a small child is not. Those things can and should be separated from aggression.
Why? Why should we just automatically separate it from aggression? Aggression isn't bad in and of itself. There is bad aggression and there is good aggression.
What needs to be done is teach kids where the line is, not that aggression is bad because thats not true.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Not every society has had men be the violent ones. Several African tribes used women as their warriors.
And no, it isnt worng to play with mock weapons. But y'know what is wrong? Decrying people not wanting to do that as "Wussification"
Besides. we live in a society where that isnt needed anymore. Men dont need to be violent.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its Wussification when its total banning of the activity, and actively campaigning against it and all related behavior. If all the SJWs got their way they'd extend these stupid zero tolerance policies all the way into our homes. Kids couldn't point fingers in their own yards and say "blam!".
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Grey Templar wrote:Why? Why should we just automatically separate it from aggression? Aggression isn't bad in and of itself. There is bad aggression and there is good aggression. What needs to be done is teach kids where the line is, not that aggression is bad because thats not true.
Do you have kids? Also, there is no such thing as "good aggression.". The word you are looking for is "assertive" and it is pretty damn distinct from aggression. In fact, it's the way to be confident and self-assured without being aggressive. It's a pretty standard and required social more that should be taught to children, not "good aggression."
221
Post by: Frazzled
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Why? Why should we just automatically separate it from aggression? Aggression isn't bad in and of itself. There is bad aggression and there is good aggression.
What needs to be done is teach kids where the line is, not that aggression is bad because thats not true.
Do you have kids?
Also, there is no such thing as "good aggression.". The word you are looking for is "assertive" and it is pretty damn distinct from aggression. In fact, it's the way to be confident and self-assured without being aggressive. It's a pretty standard and required social more that should be taught to children, not "good aggression."
Yes. As wee ones the boys were inventing weapons with which to smite their opponents. We supported this as it built arm strength. Thats important when we ship you off to the coal mine at 8.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Why ban Water Guns because our kids might think to point a real rifle at someone and not just teach our kids what the difference between a Water Gun and a Rifle is?
16387
Post by: Manchu
My dad's main hobby over the past forty years has been shooting sports, everything from reloading to hunting to competition shooting of all types. Firearms were an omnipresent feature of my childhood. As a small child, I was not allowed to point toy guns (like cap guns) at people or dogs and doing so was in the Big Deal category of household misdemeanors. Even so, this rule never applied to water guns (I'm talking about super soakers as well as el cheapo transparent plastic ones).
So this strikes me as bs.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Iron_Captain wrote:Meanwhile on Russian scout camp:
Russia might be the other extreme end of the spectrum...
But seriously, I do not understand why should you not allow boys to use water guns? A water gun is not a firearm, and using it on people can be very kind on hot days. If everyone is having fun, what is not kind about water guns? They arent dangerous.
The modern ideal American man has a mochafrappolatte in hand 24/7 and wears skinny jeans that leave no room for a pair of balls.
There is absolutely such a thing as "good aggression." You can be aggressive and still be in the right. How do you expect to win a fething fight without aggression? See above.
34390
Post by: whembly
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: whembly wrote:
I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Also, you get bonus points considering you made that statement on a website where grown men meet to talk about playing pretend battles with toy soldiers.
Might want to backtrack there buddy.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
He's got that thumb really hooked in the trigger guard
34390
Post by: whembly
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: whembly wrote: I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Quit acting like this (old) "rule" means that no Boy Scout can play with a water gun at any time regardless of whether or not he is at an official Scout function, because it isn't the case. I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout and do you know how many times we had water gun fights during a meeting? None. Do you know why? We were too busy learning things in our short meetings than to splash around in the water. When we went camping or canoeing we didn't lug water guns with us, because why the hell would we? I sure as hell wouldn't wanted to have lugged my big ass Super Soaker around in the woods all day. Seriously, get the feth over it.
Are you cranky today? Need caffeine... because your ire is sorely misdirected. You need to come down on your high horse scooty. For the record, in my boy scout days, we DID have water guns at camp. Actually, back then, we got away with fething murder (proverbial speaking) with the gak we've done. And we learned quite a bit too! Automatically Appended Next Post: ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Why? Why should we just automatically separate it from aggression? Aggression isn't bad in and of itself. There is bad aggression and there is good aggression. What needs to be done is teach kids where the line is, not that aggression is bad because thats not true.
Do you have kids? Also, there is no such thing as "good aggression.". The word you are looking for is "assertive" and it is pretty damn distinct from aggression. In fact, it's the way to be confident and self-assured without being aggressive. It's a pretty standard and required social more that should be taught to children, not "good aggression."
I do, and I disagree with your point there. Your way isn't always the "right way". Just as mine and the way I raise my kids isn't necessarily right for other kids.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Thinking more about it, the bug spray flame throwers were probably a bigger concern, safety-wise, than squirt guns would be.
Maybe it was okay because we weren't pointing those at people.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Anyone who's ever done a sport knows the value of aggression.
34390
Post by: whembly
 daedalus wrote:Thinking more about it, the bug spray flame throwers were probably a bigger concern, safety-wise, than squirt guns would be.
Maybe it was okay because we weren't pointing those at people.
We did that too....
:shrugs:
The point is, we were kids...
All boys (and girls!) should read " The Dangerous Book for Boys".
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
From the same organisation that used to have guidelines for how to kill a man, treat severe wounds and deliver children... The times they are a changin'.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm just a simple country chicken, but I think that if your boys become "wussified" because an organization with the stated goals of teaching citizenship, developing moral character, and physical and mental fitness doesn't let them shoot water guns at each other while still offering training in outdoor survival, practical life skills, community stewardship, participation in the Explorer program to become exposed to careers in firefighting, law enforcement, engineering, aviation, and many other practical real world activities; then maybe you need to stop blaming others for your "wussified" children and look at the mirror because maybe you are just a gakky parent?
Take responsibility for raising your own damn kids and realize that if they turn out gakky it is because of your failures, not because some random organization didn't let them squirt each other with water guns while learning how to build a fire and how to tie knows and who later on lets you enter a burning structure wearing protective gear to learn how to become a firefigher.
Take responsibility to realize that if your boy thinks that he has to be aggressive or else you will consider him a pussy, then you are doing far more damage than not being allowed to play with a water pistol for a couple hours each week will ever do.
And maybe, just maybe, be a role model to your kids and teach them to actually use critical thinking instead of just believing and repeating whatever bs story you want to believe. 5 years ago the Boy Scouts of America were training to be Obama's version of the Hitler Youth, being trained to take up arms against their parents and fight for their Dear Leader when their transition from Scout to SS soldier becomes complete:
(Pictured above is the Obama Youth Killing Squad, or a Law Enforcement Explorer Squat learning counter terrorism tactics, or how to be wussies, I don't even know anymore)
Either the Boy Scouts of America have a very impressive ability to completely change the scope, mission, and purpose of their organization and everything that it touches, or people are outraged over bs stories 5 years ago the same way that they are outraged about bs stories now.
And newsflash: All of us are the wussies that our fathers bitched about, who were the wussies that their fathers bitched about, who were wussies themselves according to their fathers.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Frazzled wrote:Anyone who's ever done a sport knows the value of aggression.
Unless you are Mayweather, in which you you win by hugging the guy and running away. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:Its Wussification when its total banning of the activity, and actively campaigning against it and all related behavior. If all the SJWs got their way they'd extend these stupid zero tolerance policies all the way into our homes. Kids couldn't point fingers in their own yards and say "blam!".
Maybe because we realized just how fethed up behavior like this is and lead to
1: The sorry state of mainstream porn, where Gonzo is play up like straight rape.
2: Where you have cops with the mentality of "Kill the baddy, its fine"
3: Where we very much have made a culture among young men who believe sex is owed to them and will rape if they cant get it.
4: The Hatred of gay men where we very much treat them like sub human because they dont want this.
Face it this "Channeling male aggression" is very much a big problem.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
whembly wrote: ScootyPuffJunior wrote: whembly wrote: I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.
Also, you get bonus points considering you made that statement on a website where grown men meet to talk about playing pretend battles with toy soldiers.
Might want to backtrack there buddy.
Backtrack on what? I'm not complaining about the "wussification" of boys. Sorry you don't find the humor in complaining about that "problem" on a website where a bunch of grown men talk about playing with toys, because it's there. Are you cranky today? Need caffeine... because your ire is sorely misdirected.
Nope, I'm cranky today. I've actually had a fine day and it's about to get better because I have an X-Wing tournament in about an hour, but thank you for your concern! You need to come down on your high horse scooty.
I'm not on a high horse, you're just being more irrational than usual over absolutely nothing. The stupidity of the OT forum has grown exponentially lately and this discussion is proof of it. For the record, in my boy scout days, we DID have water guns at camp.
That's cool, we had BB guns. Actually, back then, we got away with fething murder (proverbial speaking) with the gak we've done. And we learned quite a bit too!
Yeah, we did lots of things we weren't supposed to. Your point? Oh that's right, there isn't one but you think this validates your outrage over a long standing rule (that you just learned about today) of an organization you don't belong too (and that you made a point to let everyone know you're kids don't belong to) and doesn't affect you or your family (or anyone else in any real way).
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
I was in the scouts here in the UK from 6 all the way up to 18.
Can't ever remember playing with water pistols. Can remember shooting air rifles and bows, climbing and abseiling, kyaking, white water rafting, canyoning, making rafts, lighting fires, tying knots, learning first aid, setting up camps, building bivvies, going on hikes/expeditions (in the UK, Spain and Germany), jumping over a sandbag being swung round at heights which varied from just above the floor to waist height (and being completely taken out by said sandbag), playing indoor rugby with basically no rules, constructing sedan chairs and racing them, wide games which involved rugby tackling the opposing team etc.
At the end of the day, shooting water pistols has got to be one of the dullest and most pointless activities you could pick to do over other choices which will impart actual skills when you have limited time to use.
88089
Post by: Laemos
Is throwing snowballs nice? Or is that banned to?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote:Anyone who's ever done a sport knows the value of aggression.
Unless you are Mayweather, in which you you win by hugging the guy and running away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:Its Wussification when its total banning of the activity, and actively campaigning against it and all related behavior. If all the SJWs got their way they'd extend these stupid zero tolerance policies all the way into our homes. Kids couldn't point fingers in their own yards and say "blam!".
Maybe because we realized just how fethed up behavior like this is and lead to
1: The sorry state of mainstream porn, where Gonzo is play up like straight rape.
2: Where you have cops with the mentality of "Kill the baddy, its fine"
3: Where we very much have made a culture among young men who believe sex is owed to them and will rape if they cant get it.
4: The Hatred of gay men where we very much treat them like sub human because they dont want this.
Face it this "Channeling male aggression" is very much a big problem.
Them's some pretty big claims you got there. I doubt you can find any evidence that those things are caused by letting boys play with toy guns and beat each other up with sticks.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
iceballs Laemos
Throwing Iceballs was bad
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Grey Templar wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote:Anyone who's ever done a sport knows the value of aggression.
Unless you are Mayweather, in which you you win by hugging the guy and running away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:Its Wussification when its total banning of the activity, and actively campaigning against it and all related behavior. If all the SJWs got their way they'd extend these stupid zero tolerance policies all the way into our homes. Kids couldn't point fingers in their own yards and say "blam!".
Maybe because we realized just how fethed up behavior like this is and lead to
1: The sorry state of mainstream porn, where Gonzo is play up like straight rape.
2: Where you have cops with the mentality of "Kill the baddy, its fine"
3: Where we very much have made a culture among young men who believe sex is owed to them and will rape if they cant get it.
4: The Hatred of gay men where we very much treat them like sub human because they dont want this.
Face it this "Channeling male aggression" is very much a big problem.
Them's some pretty big claims you got there. I doubt you can find any evidence that those things are caused by letting boys play with toy guns and beat each other up with sticks.
Im pretty sure that violent behavior begets violent behavior.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Do you think wrestling, fencing, or any other martial art is "violent" and begets more violence?
Those are examples of healthy violence. There is aggression, but it doesn't lead to more violence. I fenced for over a decade, we gave and received no quarter. I still have some scars, we fenced a little rough. But we were friends through it all, I'm sure nobody involved with that became a mass murderer.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ok, then how do you explain the rise of gonzo porn, right now the most popular porn genre there is now. Where men brutalized aND destroy women?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I don't know, I never even heard about it before today, but I sure as hell wouldn't make a claim that its caused by kids whacking each other with sticks and pointing toy guns at each other. Thats a huge stretch.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No, but it speaks to how violent our culture it. And how getting kids to love violence perpetuates it.
and you probably seen it, just don't know that is what it is called
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Thats funny, because research actually supports the opposite.
Violent crime is at an all time low and trending to get even lower. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Notice how I never mentioned crime? No, I'm talking about violence. We still very much live in a violent culture.
Here is a link to a book I enjoyed reading about how violence in poor has risen actually. I only have the conclusion though.
https://ecommons.ucsc.edu/access/content/group/c69e8eee-4608-4bca-b78e-064734bd7805/Faculty%20Presentations%20and%20Readings/purcell2.pdf
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
So people are more violent, but that hasn't resulted in an increase in violent crime. That isn't a logical conclusion.
If people were becoming more violent, we'd see more violent crime.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
If a kid is confusing an actual firearm with a water gun, this is just an example of godawful parent who shouldn't be raising kids. Not some stupid restriction on using water guns lol.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Crossposting from my Arnie fundraiser thread for relevancy:
"The truth of it all is that, to a certain extent, we LIKE dangerous stuff. Motorcycles, fireworks, guns, skydiving, etc. The hint of danger, or at least implied danger brings excitement to what is otherwise kind of an amazingly safe world, and being made safer every minute. I don't think our brains are really wired for such a thing. We need some sort of adrenaline provoking situations. We must, otherwise we wouldn't seek them out. If we don't like that stuff, why are horror movies and FPS games so popular?
The difference here is that, in reality there's much more to the world than that, and while those things are good, anyone who wins this will already understand it. For the kids, it's about showing them that there's more before they're in a situation where they feel like that's all there is, and then enabling them to hopefully make the choice for the better."
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Grey Templar wrote:So people are more violent, but that hasn't resulted in an increase in violent crime. That isn't a logical conclusion.
If people were becoming more violent, we'd see more violent crime.
or we have found other outlets, but just as bad. Such as porn or sports.
Does that mean it is good? No. Especially because we are a lot more forgiving of violent crimes, like how the qb from the stubenville rape case got a standing ovation when he returned from juvie. Or Micheal Vick allowed back to play.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templar wrote:So people are more violent, but that hasn't resulted in an increase in violent crime. That isn't a logical conclusion.
If people were becoming more violent, we'd see more violent crime.
or we have found other outlets, but just as bad. Such as porn or sports.
Does that mean it is good? No. Especially because we are a lot more forgiving of violent crimes, like how the qb from the stubenville rape case got a standing ovation when he returned from juvie. Or Micheal Vick allowed back to play.
Sorry. Not buying your explanation as it contradicts the evidence.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
So, despite me not claiming that violent crime is going down, but we still glorify violence, you are still claiming I'm saying it is about violent crime?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
hotsauceman1 wrote:So, despite me not claiming that violent crime is going down, but we still glorify violence, you are still claiming I'm saying it is about violent crime?
How are you defining "Violence"? What is it? Do you have quantified data on "violence"?
The only way to really measure it is to measure something related, like Violent Crime. And thats taking a meteoric plunge, not a slow and gradual decline, its heading for the floor at mach1.
How can you say with a straight face that violence is increasing, yet somehow violent crime is going down?
14765
Post by: paulson games
I was in scouts years back, even made eagle loved every minute of it but some of the politiical correctness BS that tried to creep in back then was pathetic.
At one point a busy body mother suggested that the troop no longer be allowed to carry any sort of pocket knife or hatchet on camp out because boys might injure themselves or others. Given that 90% of the dads in our troop were current or former military this made for about a ten minute laugh before they eloquently said feth-no. Scouts is about teaching kids personal responsibility and also focusing on understanding the proper way to handle dangerous items like knives. If you can't safely handle the most useful multi purpose tool in the world then you have no sense being in scouts. Asking to take away a scout's knife that's like asking then to ban clothes because they might be a choking hazard.
We also used real guns, bows and arrows and even spears as we did target practice at camp with them. Same situation with knives they taught use how to treat a weapon properly and use it safely and respect the danger.
Banning squirt guns is asinine, we played rough games in scouts that included contact tackle. That was part of building character, yes kids sometimes got scratched or banged up a bit but it was always supervised and like most sports it was about character building. You get a boo boo you figure out how to get over it, not cry and retreat from the challenges of life. I can't stand how much parents coddle their kids these days especially when they are supposedly enrolling them in scouts so that they can learn how to be molded into young men and not boys.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Grey Templar wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:So, despite me not claiming that violent crime is going down, but we still glorify violence, you are still claiming I'm saying it is about violent crime?
How are you defining "Violence"? What is it? Do you have quantified data on "violence"?
The only way to really measure it is to measure something related, like Violent Crime. And thats taking a meteoric plunge, not a slow and gradual decline, its heading for the floor at mach1.
How can you say with a straight face that violence is increasing, yet somehow violent crime is going down?
No, I'm claiming that we have different outlet for violence that are still bad. For example sports and our willingness to forgive them because they provide us a violent outlet. Such as ray rice who nearly killed his wife, but all he got was a fine and counseling, while you and me wold get a lot more.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
You do realize that that incident would still get filed under Violent Crime right? So its still represented in the FBI's figures. So its still an indicator of violence. And since its an indicator of violence then violence MUST be going down.
Seriously, why can't you get this. Its right there in black and white.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
That isn't what I'm claiming, I'm claiming our culture still very much forgives violence.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ok, sure. Thats a perfectly fine claim.
But violence overall is still declining as per the FBI's statistics.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ok, cool. But I'm saying that we as a culture still like violence. And even if we put it into come thing constructive, like fencing rather than pipe bombs, it still leads to a real problem in which violence is a part of our culture and we are more likely to forgive it,vesper I ally if they have money.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
So you admit that you can channel violence into something constructive. Ergo, there is good violence and bad violence.
I fail to see how violence being part of a culture is a bad thing. Its just a thing, how you use it is what determines if its good or bad. Gonzo, murder, etc... most certainly bad. Martial arts, playing with toy guns, defending yourself from people trying to hurt you, most certainly good or at worst totally neutral.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, cool. But I'm saying that we as a culture still like violence. And even if we put it into come thing constructive, like fencing rather than pipe bombs, it still leads to a real problem in which violence is a part of our culture and we are more likely to forgive it,vesper I ally if they have money.
We forgive celebrities for a lot of crimes, not just violent ones.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 TheCustomLime wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, cool. But I'm saying that we as a culture still like violence. And even if we put it into come thing constructive, like fencing rather than pipe bombs, it still leads to a real problem in which violence is a part of our culture and we are more likely to forgive it,vesper I ally if they have money.
We forgive celebrities for a lot of crimes, not just violent ones.
Which I might add is totally unacceptable. Of course said celebrities also practically have no right to privacy from a legal standpoint either.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Which its stupid Itself.
59984
Post by: RivenSkull
As an Eagle Scout, this really bugs me.
Scouting was great about having a bunch of young boys learning various things, like shooting rifles and shotguns, in a semi autonomous setting. The adults oversaw the older scouts who in turn oversaw the younger ones. For camping trips, we had to plan out the food and itinerary, etc. It gave a very good supplement to school in learning more life practical and knowledge application, but was also a way to goof off and have a good deal of fun. Every summer camping trip my troop did, we had a massive water fight, sometimes against other troops. Spend and hour throwing water balloons at each other, using water guns to soak everyone. There was nothing "unkind" about it, or unsafe.
And for water balloons to be no bigger than ping pong balls? WTF is that gak!
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
My scouting experience was mostly with a bunch of jerks who ragged on me because I wasn't their relgion.
14765
Post by: paulson games
Nothing in the new PC charter covers usage of condoms, so I suggest that for today's scouts wanting larger than ping pong sized "water balloons" that they instead bring packs of magnum condoms with them to the water fights.  Nothing will get the attention of a wussbag scout master like somebody running up to him and slapping him in the face with a 14 inch water dong.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Then you can teach them two lessons, how much a condom can stretch. And how strong they are.
5470
Post by: sebster
A friend of my mum's, when she had her boy she decided she wouldn't let him play with toy guns, because it was the 70s and people thought stuff like that. When this kid was about four or five he started using stick as guns, so his mother tried taking those away. So the kid starting using his thumb and index finger as a gun.
My mum watched all this and realised if a kid wants to play guns he'll find a way, and so a when my mum was raising me, she didn't try and pick and choose what toys I wanted. My toys were pretty much 100% toy guns and toy soldiers. Still are, basically.
It didn't turn me mean, or violent or hard, I'm about as gentle and soft as a grown up can be. The boy who had guns banned, and was raised with a lot of other hippy nonsense ended up just fine, married and happy, a personal trainer and a real estate agent (he moved from one to the other, I can't remember the order).
I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that just let kids be kids. They've got their whole lives to be jerked around by people's silly politics, including their own, so just let them have a bit of time when they can enjoy pretending to shoot terrorists without the baggage of any adults.
But at the same time, don't panic too much about silly nonsense like banning toy guns. It isn't anything new, and kids will find another way to get their pretend violence, and none of it will matter in the end to how the kid turns out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, cool. But I'm saying that we as a culture still like violence. And even if we put it into come thing constructive, like fencing rather than pipe bombs, it still leads to a real problem in which violence is a part of our culture and we are more likely to forgive it,vesper I ally if they have money.
We as a species like violence. Our culture just reflects a basic, primal part of ourselves.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Unless you are Mayweather, in which you you win by hugging the guy and running away.
Badumtesh, yes he's here all week ladies and gentlemen.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Perhaps it's a case of the BSA not wanting the scouts to have guns in case they're mistaken for the real thing.
Didn't some kid get killed by the police a few months back for waving a plastic gun around?
As for the military aspect of the Scots, Baden Powell was very clear that he didn't want the scouts to become a paramilitary organisation or a British version of the Hitler Youth. Martial training was not the ethos driving the scouts back then.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I have yet to see a water gun that even remotely resembles a real gun.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 d-usa wrote:And maybe, just maybe, be a role model to your kids and teach them to actually use critical thinking instead of just believing and repeating whatever bs story you want to believe. 5 years ago the Boy Scouts of America were training to be Obama's version of the Hitler Youth, being trained to take up arms against their parents and fight for their Dear Leader when their transition from Scout to SS soldier becomes complete:
(Pictured above is the Obama Youth Killing Squad, or a Law Enforcement Explorer Squat learning counter terrorism tactics, or how to be wussies, I don't even know anymore)
Either the Boy Scouts of America have a very impressive ability to completely change the scope, mission, and purpose of their organization and everything that it touches, or people are outraged over bs stories 5 years ago the same way that they are outraged about bs stories now.
And newsflash: All of us are the wussies that our fathers bitched about, who were the wussies that their fathers bitched about, who were wussies themselves according to their fathers.
I must have missed this news first time around (but then again I wasn't in this country 5 years ago), but which credible news organization was running this story as a serious topic?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Tomorrow??? Have you seen the "Spine" kids these days have? Jelly fish have stiffer spine than most of them.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Grey Templar wrote:Its Wussification when its total banning of the activity, and actively campaigning against it and all related behavior. If all the SJWs got their way they'd extend these stupid zero tolerance policies all the way into our homes. Kids couldn't point fingers in their own yards and say "blam!".
First of all, that isn't what happened. Second, there have always been nosey, righteous people. Third, the SJWs are not that United, powerful or extreme for the most part.
The kids in Kindergarten don't play cops and robbers for the same reason we didn't play Cowboys and Indians growing up: because something better came along. At the schools I've been to, all the kids played Zombies, which involved a lot of fake shooting and biting. They also played superheroes and Transformers. Boys and girls. In CA, of all places.
Of course, nothing about Boy Scouts will ever be as cool as Indian Guides, where we used real tomahawks and had regular events at shooting ranges, but that doesn't make Boy Scouts 'wussified'. Probably.
The difference today is that everything is much more connected and the media is so much more pervasive that he hear about all the busybodies these days, whereas only the unfortunate kids who lived near them ever knew they existed in the 80's.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Tomorrow??? Have you seen the "Spine" kids these days have? Jelly fish have stiffer spine than most of them.
Not my boyz... Eldest is on track to be a successful evil mastermind. Youngest is my daredevil... he's going to be that kid who'll do anything and feth what anyone thinks. Yes... I'm a proud (tired) pa.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
I've bought a ton for cosplay purposes. They are pretty easy to find in stores that carry a lot of cheap imported toys.
Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:My scouting experience was mostly with a bunch of jerks who ragged on me because I wasn't their relgion.
That happened a lot to one of my Jewish friends. His Scout troop leader turned a blind eye and told him to suck it up. One day a bunch of kids tied him up and beat him, leaving him in the woods until the leader found him. The leader refused to punish any of the other boys, and that was the end of Boy Scouting for my friend.
Clearly I should apply this isolated experience to the whole organization and complain about the nazification of today's youth.
(On a semi-related note, in Garden Grove the high schoolers use the epithet "Jew" the way kids in the 90's used "gay". What the hell, Garden Grove?) Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:Ok, sure. Thats a perfectly fine claim.
But violence overall is still declining as per the FBI's statistics.
Uh, Is that how the FBI argues the US is being wussified?
Is the drop in violence and associated suffering really worth the threat to our nation's future manhood?
53516
Post by: Chute82
Was a Boy Scout in the late 80's and I don't remeber anyone ever bringing a water gun to an event. We where to busy tying knots, canoeing, hiking, camping, fishing, and starting fires. The Boy Scouts was a blast and I always looked forward to my 2 weeks of the summer at scout camp.
So what they don't want you bringing water guns to events, I don't think it's that much of a big deal. You should be busy doing scouting things anyways
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote:
Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.
Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...
I'm sure whembly has many more examples.
Because a real cop with a real gun will drive up and fething shoot you dead, that's why they don't allow you to do these things.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote:
Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.
Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...
I'm sure whembly has many more examples.
Because a real cop with a real gun will drive up and fething shoot you dead, that's why they don't allow you to do these things.
Sure, if you act aggressively with the toy gun.
If you obey the officers instructions you won't get hurt and the situation can get resolved. I'll be sure to teach my kids to obey what the police say, especially in a situation like that.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Unless your name is tamir rice.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
He explicitly did NOT obey the officers instructions and made a grab for the gun. And the call was in response to him brandishing and intimidating people in the area with the gun.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
hotsauceman1 wrote:No, but it speaks to how violent our culture it. And how getting kids to love violence perpetuates it.
and you probably seen it, just don't know that is what it is called
Like kids in the past were any less violent. Western culture as a whole has actually become a lot less violent. Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Iron_Captain wrote:Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 DarkTraveler777 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.
That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Grey Templar wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.
That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.
He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.  *edit to elaborate further
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
You yourself admitted its true. You say people are violent. Men are people, therefore you are also claiming that men are violent.
But thats not really important either way.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote: Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote:
Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.
Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...
I'm sure whembly has many more examples.
Because a real cop with a real gun will drive up and fething shoot you dead, that's why they don't allow you to do these things.
Sure, if you act aggressively with the toy gun.
If you obey the officers instructions you won't get hurt and the situation can get resolved. I'll be sure to teach my kids to obey what the police say, especially in a situation like that.
Um, not sure if you remember playing with toy guns, but that was the whole g-d point of playing War, Cowboys & Indians, Cops & Robbers or wtf-ever. it was to act aggressively towards your playmates. In the case of Tamir Rice, the cops closed to within 10 feet of him, ordered him to drop the gun, and opened fire less than 2 seconds later. Maybe I, as a combat-trained Army veteran, could react to what was basically an ambush by armed men appropriately in under 2 seconds, but a 12 year old child?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
He did react. He reached for the gun. 2 seconds is plenty of time to at least freeze, and he had more than that because as soon as he saw the cars he had time to think, and had all that time it took them to close within 10 feet. Its not like they teleported within 10 feet instantly. It took some time, plenty to think. Instead, he took a hostile action by reaching for the gun. No person desiring to be compliant, even subconsciously, would reach for a gun if cops were surrounding you and aiming real guns at you.
Sure, when I was playing Cowboys and Indians, we played aggressively. But I guarantee that sure as hell we would have stopped that if the cops showed up.
Everything Tamir did was wrong, everything the cops did was without fault.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.
That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.
He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.
*edit to elaborate further
Isn't it odd that if this violent male behaviour is conditioning then that almost every single culture has chosen to condition their men this way?
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Grey Templar wrote:You yourself admitted its true. You say people are violent. Men are people, therefore you are also claiming that men are violent.
But thats not really important either way.
Please see my edit in case you missed it. Yes men are people too, and as people they can be violent, but that does not make what Iron_Captain claimed true (and taking his logic further that would also mean that women AREN'T naturally violent, which we also know to be patently false).
It is important to differentiate this because it is still ingrained in many people that there are natural traits associated with each of the sexes which is simply not true. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Sienisoturi wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.
That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.
He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.
*edit to elaborate further
Isn't it odd that if this violent male behaviour is conditioning then that almost every single culture has chosen to condition their men this way?
Why condition it then? Why say "almost every single culture" if males are naturally violent? If males were naturally violent wouldn't EVERY culture have their men behaving violently? History has shown this to not be the case, so it becomes a matter of culture and conditioning. Men are typically encouraged by their cultures to be violent and to engage in violence, but that doesn't mean that a male baby is predisposed to violence. It just means that through rearing he will be taught to embrace those aspects of his personality while shunning others.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Do you think it would have been conditioned if it wasn't already a strength? Thats how things work. You enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses.
If it wasn't a natural tendency, then we should have a pretty even mixture of male and female martial cultures. Instead its disproportionately male. That suggests its not simple conditioning but rather a stimulation of natural male aggression to focus on something. We didn't have some group of people long in the distant past flip a coin to see if they should train the men or women in particular behaviors. They used the natural traits of both sexes to decide.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Grey Templar wrote:You yourself admitted its true. You say people are violent. Men are people, therefore you are also claiming that men are violent.
But thats not really important either way.
Please see my edit in case you missed it. Yes men are people too, and as people they can be violent, but that does not make what Iron_Captain claimed true (and taking his logic further that would also mean that women AREN'T naturally violent, which we also know to be patently false).
It is important to differentiate this because it is still ingrained in many people that there are natural traits associated with each of the sexes which is simply not true.
I said men are naturally violent, because we are talking about men (or boys) here, not about girls. Girls can be violent too, but this is more rare because of multiple reasons.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: DarkTraveler777 wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)
I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.
That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.
He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.
*edit to elaborate further
Isn't it odd that if this violent male behaviour is conditioning then that almost every single culture has chosen to condition their men this way?
Why condition it then? Why say "almost every single culture" if males are naturally violent? If males were naturally violent wouldn't EVERY culture have their men behaving violently? History has shown this to not be the case, so it becomes a matter of culture and conditioning. Men are typically encouraged by their cultures to be violent and to engage in violence, but that doesn't mean that a male baby is predisposed to violence. It just means that through rearing he will be taught to embrace those aspects of his personality while shunning others.
In which culture do women typically behave more violent than men?
There is a pretty clear biological and evolutionary reason why every culture on the entire world has their men behaving more violent than women. The fact that men have higher muscle mass and more testosteron (a hormone that encourages agression) quite simply ensure that men in general are naturally more violent than women. The evolutional reason for this is that men needed the added muscle mass and agression to hunt and ensure food and fight off rivals, while women needed to birth and take care of children.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Grey Templar wrote:Do you think it would have been conditioned if it wasn't already a strength? Thats how things work. You enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses.
If it wasn't a natural tendency, then we should have a pretty even mixture of male and female martial cultures. Instead its disproportionately male. That suggests its not simple conditioning but rather a stimulation of natural male aggression to focus on something. We didn't have some group of people long in the distant past flip a coin to see if they should train the men or women in particular behaviors. They used the natural traits of both sexes to decide.
I am not sure, to be honest. From the readings I have been exposed to (Margaret Mead is a great author to look up, her studies of island cultures convinced me that temperaments are not naturalized to specific sexes) I think that cultures come up with their own ways of handling situations and sometimes those choices coincide with physical abilities or limitations of a sex. However, I don't think that necessarily proves that a sex is naturally predisposed to behave a certain way. Men are typically stronger and faster than women, so it stands to reason that if a culture needed strapping brutes to defend its territory that the majority of those people would be men. And I would imagine said culture would want to keep that tradition going, so they'd take their boys at a young age and start training them in the arts of being a warrior. But does that mean men are naturally aggressive, or does that mean men, who typically have more muscle mass on their torsos, are better able to use weaponry to kill than a typical female and so are chosen to fulfill that purpose from an early age?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Iron_Captain wrote:I said men are naturally violent, because we are talking about men (or boys) here, not about girls. Girls can be violent too, but this is more rare because of multiple reasons.
Which again, is not true. Predisposed might be the word you are looking for rather than natural. And again, I'd argue that ultimately that predisposition is cultural, but whatevs. It isn't natural.
If you state something is naturally occurring it should manifest without human influence, and that would mean (according to you) that men would always exhibit violent behavior regardless of cultural influence, and we know that is not true. There are pacifist men. You are also stating that is rare for women to be violent, which is also not true. People are violent animals and it doesn't matter what is hanging (or not) between your legs to bring that violence out.
|
|
