As I said in my previous reply to this thread, I've lived my entire life watching the same TV and movies, and playing the same video games as anyone else in this country... And I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone...
So I see no way to place the blame on violent media... I never have...
Since it's a universal condition, how can it be the cause? If that were the case, then every one of us should be out there committing these types of crimes...
Which means that the blame must be placed in some other factor...
Part of it could be basic genetic makeup... A simple chemical imbalance could give an individual violent tendencies, or a lack of touch with the reality of violent actions... Sure, a violent video game or TV show may give some sort of trigger for an individual who was predisposed to violence to act on those tendencies...but it's certainly not the cause of their actions...
But my money is laid heavily on the parents of these people...
I have a firm belief that I turned out as well as I did (a matter of opinion...lol) because my parents did a good job of raising me... Teaching me that the violence I see in TV or video games isn't a good thing in real life... And making sure that I was taught the simple difference between "right" and "wrong"...
A child is a blank slate... It's the job of the parents of a child to form that child into a decent adult... When a parent fails to do so, things like this happen...
I remember reading a study that tried to correlate watching some arbitrary ammount of violent TV in youth caused an increase in violence in adolescence... They measured a group of kids at a young age to see how much media violence they witnessed, and then studied them years later to discover that the ones who had watched more violence showed more violent tendencies...
They tried to make it sound like it was the TV's fault... As all of these studies try to do...
But the simple thought that glared at me was that they missed an important connection... If a child is watching too much violent TV in their youth...could that be because their parents are not doing their job? Neglecting the child, and letting the TV do the babysitting? A definite possibility, no?
And if that's the case, then wouldn't it also make sense for those neglected kids to grow up not knowing right from wrong and having more violent behaviors?
So again, taking out the universal media factor...we're left with the parents being to blame...
No one seems to want to admit that, though... So all of the studies are done with the bias that it must be the media's fault...
Since it's a universal condition, how can it be the cause? If that were the case, then every one of us should be out there committing these types of crimes... And we can all ignore the fact that crime is considerably worse in recent generations. | |
We sure can. I personally choose to ignore any "fact" that's based on fantasy.
You say crime is worse... I'd like to see some evidence of that*. This sounds like "good ol' days" syndrome, the persistent belief that things were better and are getting worse. Part of the perception of a problem may be that we're finding more and more ways to measure crime. Confirming the frequency of horrific events often makes it seem like they're becoming more and more common... for a little microcosm version of this phenonmenon, witness the "surge" in kidnappings this past year. Actually, child abductions by strangers is down... the media and law enforcement are just making a more concerted effort to see that they get attention. *That's a blatant lie. All available evidence suggests the world is getting generally better... even if it is on the model of 100 steps forward, 99 steps back... being a cheery and optimistic person, I'd hate to see that proven wrong. | |
That's what I thought you'd say.
<FONT COLOR=black>But it's not like you were alive back then to know or anything.</FONT> | |
Foomer wrote:
That's what I thought you'd say. And you were?</FONT> | |
I'd agree with Lexy on this one... But let's just say that crime is worse now than is has been in the past...
Just because violent media has increased at roughly the same time that real life violence has increased doesn't mean that there's a direct connection... Other modern trends could be a major factor... More working parents spending less time raising their kids for one... [Edit:] As another example of commonly accepted poor correllation... There's a statistic that says that the majority of accidents happen within 5 miles of the home... People take that like it's supposed to mean something... No one seems to notice that, based on statistics, of course most accidents happen within that limit... Most of our time is spent within that limit... It's not that we're any more likely to have an accident within that limit... Just that the numbers are higher because the frequency that we're within that limit is higher... | |
<FONT COLOR=black>I thought you'd say that too. No, but I talk to old people who didn't lock their doors when they were little. They usually have plenty to say on the topic.</FONT>
| |
Even if crimes of that type have gone up, it doesn't mean that violent media is to blame. It could be a lack of good parenting, more exposure to corrupting influences like drugs that can lead to violence, or a myriad of other factors. It COULD add to the problem, but watching Barney COULD add to it as well. Of course Barney isn't as likely too (except in older kids and parents) but the point is that correlation does not imply causation, there are too many other possabilities to be able to tell. Does violent media create violent people or are violent people drawn to violent media?
SSGX: Children are not blank slates. My parents could identify my brothers personality and mine within a month of us being born. Despite what some people might say, we actually bare some responsability for our actions, ideals, and outlook on life. Of course parenting does have a very large impact on children but there is a lot more to it. Anyway, I agree that we have some of our priorities out of whack (if that was the original point) and that we have much larger problems such as out of wedlock births, drugs, lack of positive role models, and everything else on a long list than violent media. I'm not really sure why the media and everyone is making such an issue of the military training and connection though. Any joe shmoe with a rifle and a few days on the rifle range could do what he did regardless of military training (I suppose they would have to have patience and dedication as well to delay or avoid getting caught). Did the Zodiac killer, Son of Sam, or 9/11 bombers have US military training? No, and they managed to kill plenty. The percentage of killers coming out the US military and the number of deaths associated with them probably isn't too far off from the general population. It is probably slightly more percentage wise because violent people may be drawn to it, but there are millions of US military trained citizens who don't go on killing sprees just as there are millions of civilian Americans that don't. As for screening entrants, I would say that should be more regulated. From what I've heard in reports, it actually isn't uncommon for gang members to join the Military to get some paid weapons and fighting training. If I missed everyones points completely as I do habitually with several people on this forum then just say, "That wasn't my point." or ignore me and I'll drop it ;) | |
Heh... Guess what? I can leave my doors unlocked (and frequently do) right now and not be in any harm... We never lock our car doors in this town... Even relatives who live in places where they do have to lock their doors come here and feel safe enough to leave their doors unlocked...
I've often left a bicycle unlocked leaning up against a post outside of work for a full 8 hour shift and still had it there to ride home... From where I'm standing, life is still pretty good... | |
Ah... "anecdotal evidence," my favorite contradiction in terms.
I've never had a key to my parents' house, and not because I'm not welcome there. If I need something from there, or have something to drop off, I just let myself in through the front door, and close it behind me when I leave. Door locking is more a function of geography than generation. Crime is moving, as crime always does, so it's not the same neighborhoods in which you can leave your doors unlocked, but the neighborhoods are still there. Crime is a constant danger whether or not its on the rise... a really bad crime is likely to eventually happen at any location, given enough time... so over time, there will be less and less locations in which a bad crime hasn't happened, so there will be less and less locations which "feel safe." I bet a lot of the neighborhoods around the snipers' haunts, people lock up more than they used to, even though the sniper didn't invade any homes. It's a matter of comfort more so than actual security. I personally live in a neighborhood that's virtually crime-free. We could leave the door unlocked 24/7, as many of the other people in my apartment complex do, and odds are that nothing would happen. However, Kimberly is from New York City, and she doesn't feel comfortable with the door unlocked, so it stays locked. The same old people will also be happy to tell you that the food was better, the politicians were more honest, etc., etc., etc. There's old people walking around today who will be happy to tell you that the world is a terrible, fear-filled place and they wish they could return to the carefree world of their youth... nevermind that they lived through plural world wars and "police actions" and raised their children under the threat of thermonuclear extinction. Threat of war is not exactly the same thing as threat of crime, but it's a wonderful example of the rose-colored (or is that sepia-toned) glasses that we tend to wear when we think of the age in which we grew up. How many old people talking about our modern "golden age of wonders" do I have to round up to scientifically cancel out your doom-and-gloomers, Foomer? | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
From where I'm standing, life is still pretty good... Yeah, but it's always full of pauses...you'll be talking...and suddenly everything will stop...but then you can start talking again... | |
Foomer wrote:
I thought you'd say that too. No, but I talk to old people who didn't lock their doors when they were little. They usually have plenty to say on the topic. Go back fifty years and you know what old people were saying? "We didn't used to have to lock our doors...young people didn't used to be like this..." As has been pointed out repeatedly, crime is down in the past two generations. If you disagree, no problem -- just find the statistics to back up your claim. Otherwise, just admit it: You prefer to wallow in the standard "life used to be better" feeling that people have been writing about since the time of the Greeks (and probably earlier), without any backup to your feelings. That's fine, it's a lifestyle, just don't mix it up with facts. And, again, let's remember the two things that make life so infinitely better than anything prior to the past 50 years: - Air conditioning - Dentistry | |
And, again, let's remember the two things that make life so infinitely better than anything prior to the past 50 years: Is that why my dentist blasts the air conditioning in her office even in the middle of winter? King of a "highlights of civilization" feature? | |
And, again, let's remember the two things that make life so infinitely better than anything prior to the past 50 years: Which, as we all know, is so fundamentally important to the concept of life that it is my firm belief that human civilization spontaneously leapt into existence about 50 years ago. | |
Leftley wrote:
And, again, let's remember the two things that make life so infinitely better than anything prior to the past 50 years: Definitely. You can read old accounts of how many people in New York would abandon their apartments and go try to sleep in Central Park, because the heat was so miserable. They'd bring their alarm clocks with them, which I find funny. A recent study showed that even today, much to most people's surprise, heat waves are one of the biggest killers we have. Because they don't leave trails of blood they don't get press...but more people die that way than in other forms of natural disaster. You can also read about the times when people were happy to have the rest of their teeth fall out, because then at least most of the pain stopped... Prior to modern dentistry, life-long dental pain was simply something almost everyone had to live with. There is a dentist who became a historian, and likes to write things from the perspective of "And this king was in miserable pain all the time because his teeth were rotting away..." I harp on these specific details about the past because 1) they are interesting and 2) it's pretty hard for the vague "life used to be better, I'm sure of it dammit" people to deny them... | |
There is a certiant influence games have on people. Usually its just planting the idea. Sometimes thats all it takes though.
Also, sometimes it leads to de-censorization. We have a jolly good laugh when Rob yells at his Mum to run down old ladies in her 4x4, or get out and rip her head off and beat her with it State of Emergancy style. We have laughed at things ideas that SHOULD be exremely disterbing, but since we have 'done it all before' its not. Im not saying that we should go out and bad GTA: Vice City because of its content, but we should do something about who is allowed to get it. I think giving a violent game a M+15 rating SHOULD be enough, however most perents will buy it for there 10 year old kids without even glancing at the rating. Hopefully parinoid perents start to pay attention to and trust the ratings on games. -DogMan | |
I think giving a violent game a M+15 rating SHOULD be enough, however most perents will buy it for there 10 year old kids without even glancing at the rating. This is a matter of maturity alone; age don't enter into it. Some kids have the concept of telling right from wrong down pat at age 6 or 7, others don't get it until they're in their twenties--or else they never figure it out at all. | |
I may be just opening a can of worms by bringing this up, particularly since in both cases there isn't enough publicly available evidence to do more than speculate, but here goes anyway!
In the recent sniper case, what media writeups I've seen have focused much more on the (accused) sniper's military background than his conversion to Islam. In the McVeigh case, there is some interesting circumstantial evidence suggesting that there may have been an Islamic terror cell involved -- granted, this could easily be just another example of a conspiracy theory constructed out of carefully selected morsels of information, but it would at least explain how Gore Vidal came into the picture. (Okay, that last bit was unwarranted, but fun.)
I'm not making any statement here about Islam in general -- the variety of Islamic fundamentalism that portrays America as The Great Satan is only one of many competing flavors of Islam. But I figure it's at least worth mentioning a possible connection in those cases beyond the fact of their military background.
Having said that, though, it doesn't at all diminish your point, which was the following:
The point is, perhaps rather than chasing phantoms that we can't quantify, we should spend our energy figuring out how to ensure that kids who actually are being trained to kill (and therefore, at least in some situations, being desensitized to killing) are being trained/monitored in ways that will reduce their likelihood to later become mass murderers.
I think that makes perfect sense. But what sort of training can achieve this without diluting the soldier's resolve to kill people he's actually supposed to kill? (This is not meant to suggest that such training can't exist, but only to indicate that I don't know what it would entail.) And on the other side of the coin, what sort of monitoring can be implemented? I could see performing psychological tests while the soldier is in the military -- in themselves the tests wouldn't be ironclad evidence of a propensity toward future bad behavior, but they could at least identify individuals who could potentially benefit from counseling.
But once the soldier is out of the military, I think the opportunity for monitoring is pretty much gone; I don't think many people from anywhere on the political spectrum would like the idea of mandatory monitoring of civilians with no criminal record. Not that this is what you were suggesting -- I just mention it to underscore the notion that whatever efforts are taken in this regard would pretty much have to be done during the soldier's term of service.