Dustin Martin innocent, mass media guilty

Dalgety - thanks for replying. My position doesn't hang on Chomsky and a few videos. It's not easy trying to explain and work through complex theories in this forum but we are making progress. There are a number of things that I don't agree with Chomsky on. I haven't seen him criticise behavioural theory but it wouldn't suprise me if he did. He has other positions that seem to contradict each other - everyone has boundaries they won't cross for one reason or another. Tabular ras in an extreme doctrine, I don't agree with it. On the baby - when the baby stops responding to the stimuli the stimuli can be amplified and/or additional stimuli can be introduced and stimuli doesn't have a limit but a baby does. If the will to change the behaviour of the baby is strong enough it will overcome the will of the baby every single time (for the most part, baby can still think for example and it does have freewill) but it would take a very special baby to overcome the constant stimuli over the course of its lifetime which is what we are talking about. "Any strongly conditioned behaviour, thought or action doesn’t have reasonable sustainability (to survive through demonstrable facts and negative consequences) unless there are inherent structures to support it." There are inherent structures to support it and they are ever evolving. On educational systems and effiency - if our reality is that this is the only possible reality then a position like yours could be argued, I get that. But I'm looking much deeper eg why do we have this specific educational system in the first place, same for our economy, healthcare system, financial system ie everything. Most people will accept the cards they are dealt and say that's just the way that it is. I know that we can have a self-sustaining educational system (for everyone) with 1 teacher per 5 children with zero downside for any other area of our daily lives, quite the opposite in fact. Same for healthcare etc. It really doesn't have to be this way and this may explain where I'm coming from. We aren't even close to where we should be in terms of human development. We've been held back by the systems and conditioning that have been enforced on us. I don't hear the saying - "we only use 10% of our brains" being used very often these days. That should be read every person every single day - that's good indoctrination, but it's largely disappeared from the vernacular. Why? As is always the case science has stepped in to discredit it by saying that we use 100% of our brains. While that may be true on some level it's not telling the whole story but science won't talk about 'the other side' as it will just keep discrediting it. Science is very assumptive and very fraudulent (it's religious/faith based at its core as it takes leaps of faith to believe much of it) and when scientists are grilled deeply they can be made to agree (if they are being honest with themselves). Let's expand the definition of brain to include mind, thoughts, human potential etc. When you did this the 10% seems very appropriate. Brain has many meanings yet science has defined it for its study so as to prove its pre-determined outcome. So tell me - is the saying we only 10% of our brain a good or bad thing for kids and adults to believe in? Would it do more harm than good? I would argue that when it isused in the correct context it's a very good thing. One places a limit on us while the other says there isn't one. You will get different outcomes when using either belief and I'd argue that we aren't using the best one. Google "10% of our brain" and look at the results you get. The next generation are being conditioned to believe that they are already using 100% of their brain and no matter how many times you will try to tell them otherwise in a few decades time they won't believe you - they've been successfully indoctrinated and their thoughts, beliefs and opinions have been formed by outside influences that don't have the persons best interests at heart. This is just one example but there are millions of them that are all subtlety working away. It's akin to the death of the mind by a thousand cuts.

Fair enough, I didn't read that bit.

And rightly so!

jax I don't think your examples cut the mustard at all and are a bit grade school. I also think you've leapt into an argument tangental from the context of the post. Have no fear, I'm not bothered by it particularly. You can't just use some very basic descriptions of behavioural conditioning and a bit of YouTube and think that makes a cohesive argument (Chomsky was (overly) critical of behavioural theory so I'm not sure you're all that aware his cannon). I'm also not entirely clear, are you arguing from a (discredited) "tabula rasa" pov? Furthermore the examples you gave were so broadly related to the point, it is like evaluating the artistic merits of a Cezanne painting by summarising how paint is mixed. The the loose connectability also means that they could equally be used for the counter argument. For example your description of using a punishing stimulus to condition a baby to stop opening their eyes, does not account for the strength of the drive for the baby to open their eyes, how long you would need to apply the stimulus for or how long the conditioning would last after the withdrawal of the conditioned stimulus. The drive to open the eyes would be a fairly strong one and given the effects of a punishing stimulus lose their effects quickly when they are no longer proximate (particularly if there are no paired operant effects) the direct behavioural change would only be temporary. Any strongly conditioned behaviour, thought or action doesn't have reasonable sustainability (to survive through demonstrable facts and negative consequences) unless there are inherent structures to support it. Look judgements are a way for us to manage information with efficiency. The efficiency, however, is not always that functional as we would like (mainly because as humans we overuse judgements/short cuts in thinking, we're addicted to patterns). So generalisations (such as educational institutions brain-wash) help with not having to engage too much brainpower with each individual circumstance, but can lead us to be inflexible in our thinking and actions. Our vision provides us with more information more quickly than any other sense for most of us. So the brain will rely on it where it can, particularly if our neurological resources are engaged with our resource demanding emotions. I'm not endorsing that, I'm just stating it. Dustin Martin obviously likes to play with his image a fair bit and good luck to him. But I don't think you can put judgements based on race in the same category of a chosen fashion or subculture. Particularly if your actions start correlate with that stereotype. It may not be exactly fair to be judged in that way, but there's no rule of fair in life. I'm a broadminded bloke and try to use observations rather than judgements when I can, which includes not rushing to judge those that do.

Gee Pete, I hope your not a lawyer, but you do prove my point. If a victim, the principal person involved in an offence, does not give a statement to Police, the matter relating to her for all intents and purposes is dead. The Police then investigated if any other offences had occurred and came up with nothing. Martin has not been found innocent, the woman involved declined to initiate legal action. He is a lucky boy. Also: Martin by his own admission can't remember what happened. Why the establishment he was at, and Martin himself, haven't been hit with responsible serving of alcohol infractions I don't know. But to the point of the article, to blame the media is bordering on delusional.

Mike, she could only be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice if she was involved in the legal process, since she avoided involvement with the police by refusing to make a statement that charge is off the table. The very best Dusty could hope for would be a civil defamation case. However, after reviewing the footage and getting other statements the police made a statement of fact ´no criminal action occurred´. Thats pretty much as good as it gets for a finding of innocence.

Chomsky is so far past his use by date it is not funny. The media doesn't work like it did in Chomsky and McLuhan's day. (FYI, I teach the subject.) You say 'debate the point". The point is about Martin, Bartlett et al. You are detouring so far off the point that one wonders whether you have hit the wrong site. Discuss the sport issue...that's why we are here.

Debate the points fellas or is that too difficult for you? It seems that you're both out of your depth now. I provide sources and examples while you are now providing babble. If you want to carry on believing that we are born with in-built predujices go right ahead living in your fairytale land. I'm well aware that the vast majority of people will never see clearly and it doesn't matter to me what you think. Chomsky says that education in schools (and the media) is designed to teach us to discriminate against each other and marginalise groups of people so that we turn on them, that's exactly what humans do. Source: you tube - 'Noam Chomsky education is a system of indoctrination'. You're not only arguing with me - you're disagreeing with a man that many regard as arguably the most important living intellectual. It's probably over your heads but give it a try none the less. Or ignore it and carry on like a blind sheep with a big mouth and no substance. I genuinely wish you both all the very best on your journey.

I'll leave you with these two video snippets. You tube: * Noam Chomsky - Education is a system of indoctrination of the young * Manufacturing Consent "Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school" - Albert Einstein I'm doing this for people that might be interested. I don't care what you think. If you're going to talk a big game you've got to be prepared to back it up or shut up. You've chosen the later, probably a wise move. I've said what I wanted to say. Good luck Don, I wish you well.

The length of the posts are just the start of it, the disingenuous accusations, overly emotive claims , convenient presumptions and plain reading into things that just aren’t there, make it true to form for jax. I think in jax's rush to climb on some sort of ill-suited high horse he got confused about identifying/acknowledging particular filters as endorsing them or some admission that I’m excessively prone to them. I had to laugh when he called me self-righteous though.

Ill think you find that didnt happen if you re read it

The more frantic you get, the longer your posts, Jax. Don't expect people to respect your comments when your line of argument is, " I know everything about this topic and you know very little." When I read the interchange between you and Dal, one of you speaks with the authority of balance while the other is just trying too hard with a cut and paste from myriad philosophers...random and wihout context. You are not the former.

Let this one go Jax, Your comments are almost Elmer Fudd in nature on this topic. It is just not interesting or incisive.

My reply has been awaiting moderation for 4 hours so I'll try again. You may end up with two of these but I've edited this one down. I know that it’s not just you that judges people on their looks and I’m sorry if you feel singled out but your comment deserved it. I agree with you, many will judge him on his looks, just as some did with Goodes. That doesn’t make it right, natural or justifiable which is what you are trying to do when you assign these prejudices to evolution. I don’t agree that it’s evolutionary and I don't believe that we are born with in-built discriminatory filters or predujices of the type that we are talking about. Opening your eyes and smiling are natural. If I were to prick a baby with a needle eveytime it opened its eyes it would soon stop opening them. If I were to scare a child with a loud noise every time it smiled it would soon stop smiling. Fear is the biggest motivating factor in human behaviour, not love. . Babies are not born scared of the dark. So where does this fear of the dark come from? Babies aren’t born with a natural tendency to discriminate on the colour of skin, hair or tattoos. They are conditioned to discriminate and that has nothing to do with evolution and an enormous amount to do with the environments they were exposed to. You say that you understand filters and maybe you do on some basic level but I would argue that there is a lot that you don’t understand. That’s not a personal attack on you. I’m just stating what I believe to be a true based on your comments thus far.

With all due respect you don't have a clue Don. You're a school teacher I believe and if that's true I wonder if you are aware that most of the curriculum that is taught in schools and universities is biased, assumptive, skewed and in many instances just plain wrong? Exactly like the media is. I've pulled you up a number of times in the last year and educated you on the media when you clearly didn't have a clue what you were talking about so don't tell me everyone knows because a few months ago you didn't have a clue. You didn't respond to those comments of mine at the time, probably because I schooled you and you had some research to do and now you come out and talk about media 101, please. Now that you're suddenly an 'overnight expert' on the media it's time to go and research the education system, its origins, when schooling became mandatory, why it became mandatory, where the curriculum came and comes from today, what is omitted, what is inserted, why do we have tests and marks - if you do that you will find see the same patterns that we see in the media. Or are you an expert on education as well? You should be as you've probably been working in schools for some years now and if that is true, I have a question for you. What are doing working and collecting money from a system that peddles lots of lies? If a woman sells her body we have a name for it. The difference in your case is that spreading lies through education harms a lot more people than a woman selling her body does. If you are a teacher working in a school you should take the time to independently investigate the education system.

We already know this stuff, Jax. We just make judgements and choices based on such knowledge. What you say about the media on this site is new to no one.

Most people don't want to know Don so you're not unusual in that regard. Has there ever been another article like this written by a Roar expert that takes aim at the journalists and media? I can't recall one so people shouldn't be worried about one real article (that effects so many people in so many ways) in every 100,000. I made the 100,000 up of course but you get the point I hope. People support wars and millions of people die because the media feeds lies to the people. Oh silly me - sport and my entertainment is far more important than a persons life. The Romans had a collissieum for very good reasons.

Just to be clear...I appreciate Cam's article. That is relevant. Jax's attempt to re-hash Media Studies 101 from an introductory TAFE course is not relevant. Sport, Jax. That's what we want. We all understand the world and how it works.

I don't. That topic is boring in the extreme...and irrelevant to footy. I want a lot more articles about the playing of footy and about the abilty of footy players.