It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sounds like some sort of gang initiation.
You just answered your own question...
is the statement that follows it...
I would've felt justified in having the entire gang lined up and shot or hung.
The point concedes the issue on 'justification' not 'provocation'. It also brings to highlight the difference between 'feeling' and 'do-ing', that I am not inured to feeling fury and rage...would I not be less human if I didn't? However, I would be hypocritical if I was to actually carry out the perceived justification for retribution upon them. I would be acting upon a purely emotional response...which is why I end my post with...
This is how I felt upon learning of this attack.
but not before the earlier statement...
Reason simply fails humanity to encompasse the inhumane.
...comprehension flees the mind, and inertial incredulity sets in.
Originally posted by Heike
And they're still trying to convince us that violence in TV and movies and violent video games have no effect ... yeah right.
Another thing that I believe contributes to this is addiction to "excitement" and the need for instant and/or constant gratification.
From an early age children are constantly being stimulated and we are led to believe this is a good thing.
I do not think it is. I remember spending hours just sitting out under a tree watching nature and maybe daydreaming, or spending time in my room with a book or drawing .. quiet time ...
When does a kid get quiet time these days? If he's not playing a video game, the TV is on, or at the very least the music is blaring from speakers, headphones, earpips, etc.
Every new gadget is designed to constantly provide a high level of entertainment.
I think human brains get "addicted" to this constant high level of stimulation and then two things happen:
1) It becomes impossible for the person to just be quiet and be still for any length of time without external stimulation/entertainment.
2) Increasingly higher levels of stimulation are required to actually get a "thrill," thus the escalation to taking real risks and then real violence.
just my .02
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
This is an act of a sickened INDIVIDUAL.
Originally posted by Heike
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
This is an act of a sickened INDIVIDUAL.
No, according to at least one witness it was a GROUP of individuals who were responsible.
Considering the general anonymity of homeless people, I have to wonder if there aren't many more similar crimes happening to homeless people who don't happen to live in a caring, supportive neighborhood where they were known.
Originally posted by Heike
How about trying to understand what I'm actually saying before attacking me?
To try to put it in more of a simplistic nutshell for you, I'm saying that I think the constant overstimulation of people (especially children) by various electronic media is at least partially responsible for the increase in "senseless" random violence, i. e. "thrill killings."
I'm saying that providing children with "instant gratification" throughout their childhood warps them to expect it and need it, which in turn leads to frustration and anger when they don't get it. "You can't always get what you want" is not just a good song but a good lesson. Too many people haven't learned it.
That's all. And how is that bashing "human nature"?
And FYI, not that it's any of your business nor should it have any impact on the validity of my opinion, I will be 51 years old in five days.
And PS, why don't you leave me alone and provide your own reaction/opinion to the OP instead of derailing the thread by trying to prove everything I say wrong? Thanks.
Originally posted by Heike
I'm entitled to my opinion and my views just like everyone else here. I'm sorry that you seem to be so offended by them, but you have no right to ask me to "keep them to myself." I am a member of ATS in good standing and have every right to express my views here.
I am sorry that you don't see the escalation of violence, especially from children.
A quick look at even Wiki's timeline of school shootings should concern you, and five minutes with Google will turn up hundreds of articles about children (minors) committing more violent crimes.
You refuse to understand what I'm actually trying to say, and it's pointless for me to go back and dig up references to "prove" every point I use such as the generally understood fact that exposure to images of violence desensitizes people/children to violence. Regardless, we are now off topic.
Please limit further discussion to the topic of this thread. If you simply MUST argue with me, you can u2u me, or start your own BTS thread "What's wrong with Heike" or something and I'll argue with you about my negativity and etc. there. But please stop hijacking other peoples' threads just to try to point out to everyone how awful - and wrong - I am.
Originally posted by StellarX
you have every right to ignore me and to keep 'telling it as it is' ( as everyone seems to think their doing) thus begging a response.
I am sorry that you believe everything you hear on the news; it must really be depressing to have no context and to think that what you see is actually trends.
Don't you even understand that if these cases are as clear cut as some propose that they are merely the result of kids seeking retribution for perceived wrongs?
You insist that the media's bias in reporting crime 'proves' that society is becoming more violent when that just isn't the case.
misrepresenting the legitimate desperation ( why am i even at school when there's no jobs?) that large sections of the American society is being subjected to.
Originally posted by Heike
Well, instead of pointing out all the wrong answers, why don't you tell it as it really is, then, since you seem so sure that you know? What is the real problem? Why do you think someone(s) found it necessary to burn a harmless homeless man alive?
Not true at all. I believe relatively little that I "hear" on the news. I have worked on and off with "troubled children" since the early 80's and I know from personal experience and from discussions with other professionals in the field that these teenagers and children are (in general) more violent, more aggressive, and more dangerous than they were 20 or 25 years ago.
And, if you aren't basing your information on MSM news, then please tell us what your sources are. According to your profile you are in South Africa, so how do you know what is really going on in the United States?
IF is such a huge word to have only two letters, isn't it? I don't think these cases are that clear cut. I was bullied in school too, and I had ready access to knives and my Dad's gun, but it never once occurred to me to use either on my perpetrators.
Futhermore, retribution for bullying provides no explanation for the 10 year old boy who stabbed his own grandmother to get the $10 that was in her purse, the 14 year old who beat and kicked a 12 year old severely enough to put him in the hospital with broken bones in order to take his tennis shoes, or the group of teenagers (12 - 16) who cut open a live dog and removed its stomach and intestines "just to see what would happen to it." And these are NOT examples from MSM or news, they are cases that I have personally seen.
Again, that's an incorrect assumption on your part. Based on personal experience, the collective experience of other professionals, and what I've seen and read in professional journals and other resources, society IS becoming more violent, and the perpetrators of extreme violence - such as the burning alive of this homeless man - are getting younger and younger.
The country's overall crime rate is displayed in two indices. The violent crime index comprises homicide, forcible rape, robbery and assault. The property crime index consists of burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Statistics for index offenses are generally available for the country as a whole, all fifty states and all communities within the United States with 10,000 or more residents. The crime rate is measured by the number of crimes being reported per 100,000 people. While the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1970s and 1980s, it has drastically declined ever since 1991. One hypothesis suggests there is a causal relationship between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[3] In 2004 America's crime rate is roughly the same as in 1970, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1965. Overall, the national crime rate was 3982 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 4852 crimes per 100,000 residents thirty years earlier in 1974 (-17.6%).[4] The severity of crime in international comparison depends on the nature of the crimes considered in such comparison. For example, while the homicide and violent crime rates of the United States were much higher than those of Canada, property crime rates in the US were considerably lower. The overall crime rate in the United States is lower than that of Canada.[5][6] Additionally there tend to be great regional differences within the U.S. with New England having a violent crime and homicide rate comparable to that of most other developed nations, while southern states were among the most violent.
en.wikipedia.org...
What? Where are you getting THIS information? News perhaps? I can't go anywhere in the rural towns I live near without seeing "Help Wanted" signs posted everywhere.
The agency I work for is hiring. The fast food joints and restaurants are hiring. Atwoods is hiring. Walmart is hiring.
American Steel is hiring.