Is our Culture making killers?

[NAZGÛL]

I'm a dad too and will throw in my 2 cents

Parents need to do their job and discriminate what is appropriate for children to see.

Discriminating is making the right choice to skip that violent midnight screening with a young child in tow. It means one shouldn't use foul and abusive language to loved ones, or watch violent television programs in front of the kids at home, or spout violence as a solution to mundane problems. Children see and take in all of those examples of bad behavior parenting.
It's called being a responsible adult and more people need to accept it.

:thumbsup

 

[Master of Fear]

To a point, yes, because while we have normal dudes like us, There are those nutcases that take movies WAY too seriously. As in, they Think that the Terminator is real, or they think that they are the Reincarnation of Jason Voorhes. Don't believe me? They recently arrested some dude that was committing vandalism on election signs and stuff, and then actually went off and kicked the crap out of someone. Guess who that nut said he was? He said that he was Captain America and was getting rid of the signs because they were "Advertising a man who stands for Communism". Oooookay?...

 

[Jeyl]

Parents need to do their job and discriminate what is appropriate for children to see.

Discriminating is making the right choice to skip that violent midnight screening with a young child in tow. It means one shouldn't use foul and abusive language to loved ones, or watch violent television programs in front of the kids at home, or spout violence as a solution to mundane problems. Children see and take in all of those examples of bad behavior parenting.
It's called being a responsible adult and more people need to accept it.

I agree with the parenting part, but not the violent programming parts. That is NOT an absolute. My parents let me watch some pretty messed up stuff even when I was still in my single digits. I can recall seeing The Terminator before I even knew how many days there were in a week. As a child, I've seen ALIEN, Commando, PREDATOR, Rambo, Total Recall, the works. But my parents always told me that these movies were fake and that nothing like them would or should happen in the real world. As a kid, I understood that.

I think overall, we are a society that really does tolerate violence and judgmental acts. Take reality TV for example. The entire point of the program is watching mean people pass judgement on one another in how bad they are, and we watch it for the laughs. My favorite example has got to be the MPAA in 2010. There were two films released that year that were serious oscar contenders. One was True Grit, one was The King's Speech.

True Grit featured open racism, on-screen hanging, a minor using a gun, on-screen finger dismemberment, close range gun shots to the head complete with red colored blood splatter, numerous gun fights, a man attempting to murder a minor and violence against animals.
Rated PG-13

The King's Speech featured a scene where the King is told by his vocal assistant to use swear words in an effort to see how the King responds to something he's not entirely used to. Profanity for medicable purposes.
Rated R

Why is violence so easily off the hook when language alone makes a film more unsuitable when it's not even being used in an offensive manner? Even the Batman movies get away with a crap ton of violence from stabbing, explosions, gunshots, neck breaking and even descriptions of disturbing mutilations.

Oh, sex and nudity? Big no no. I still know parents who worry more about the porn that their kids see on their own computers than what they're killing on their game consoles.

 

[Gigatron]

Before this time, killers and psychos were limited only to their sick and twisted devices. Nothing about them could've been linked to any sort of media driven ideas.

That's the point I'm making - people didn't need TV or movies to need to know how to be psychotic. They did it all on their own.

There was nothing for people to blame it on, other than some people are just not right in the head. You think Billy the kid's mom would be "Oh, poor william, it's not his fault he's a psychotic killer. The dirt he used to play in, would pick fights with the surrounding cactii. Violence is all he knows."?

People don't need to be taught violence - it's an ingrained survival instinct. Some people just don't have the wiring to tell them that they don't need to go on killing sprees.

-Fred

 

[Feraud]

Books and plays would be consumed on a weekly basis at most! A story around the fire also offers a layer of abstraction and a buffer to the terrors of the story being conveyed. Seeing people getting gunned down every hour on the hour 24/7 seven is gonna lead to a changed perspective of some sort.

Nick

Agreed.
I'll add books read at home or in school and stories around the campfire are generally (but not always) administered by parents, teachers, scout leaders, etc. in the context of a lesson. These are people we trust with our children. As it should be.
What is the goal of the media saturation we are exposed to other than selling product? We shouldn't easily dismiss the psychological attack on young minds as they they navigate the adult world of media/technology.
Marketing is a science. Do we really want our children at the mercy of these predators?

 

[jlee562]

That's the point I'm making - people didn't need TV or movies to need to know how to be psychotic. They did it all on their own.

There was nothing for people to blame it on, other than some people are just not right in the head. You think Billy the kid's mom would be "Oh, poor william, it's not his fault he's a psychotic killer. The dirt he used to play in, would pick fights with the surrounding cactii. Violence is all he knows."?

People don't need to be taught violence - it's an ingrained survival instinct. Some people just don't have the wiring to tell them that they don't need to go on killing sprees.

-Fred

All of this is true, but it's also true that culture can and does have influence.

 

[Zuiun]

Seeing people getting gunned down every hour on the hour 24/7 seven is gonna lead to a changed perspective of some sort.

I think that sometimes it's easy to forget that human history is pretty filled with violence far more visceral than what people are exposed to today. The method of delivery might be a bit different, but I don't really think we're any more exposed to or prone to violence, as a whole, than we have ever been.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I'm sorry, but I don't see that being the case. Being a coward stems from fear which causes an individual to not do something. A soldier who can't bring himself to fight an enemy that's trying to kill him and his friends is a coward. Someone who intentionally chooses to kill unarmed innocent civilians and doesn't break down while doing it is not a coward because those are his targets. If these psychos wanted to go after only armed people but still shoot unarmed civilians, I still wouldn't call them cowards because they're not afraid to do these horrible acts.

We'll just have to disagree on that. The act itself is cowardly because they are too much of a ***** to take on people who can actually fight back. Like a bully is a coward for picking weaker people to prey on. I don't know if there is another word for it, but choosing targets that are no threat to you is a sign of cowardice to me.

 

[Feraud]

I agree with the parenting part, but not the violent programming parts. That is NOT an absolute. My parents let me watch some pretty messed up stuff even when I was still in my single digits. I can recall seeing The Terminator before I even knew how many days there were in a week. As a child, I've seen ALIEN, Commando, PREDATOR, Rambo, Total Recall, the works. But my parents always told me that these movies were fake and that nothing like them would or should happen in the real world. As a kid, I understood that.

I agree the situation is not an absolute. Looking at violent images will not create a monster. The human mind is a comlex organ we barely understand.
When it comes to young people and the media ‘tis better to err on the side of caution.
For the record I too grew up watching my share of violent programming and never killed anyone.

 

[Kerr Avon]

We'll just have to disagree on that. The act itself is cowardly because they are too much of a ***** to take on people who can actually fight back. Like a bully is a coward for picking weaker people to prey on. I don't know if there is another word for it, but choosing targets that are no threat to you is a sign of cowardice to me.

Yup, totally cowardly to take on an unarmed crowd, while there's no chance in hell people like the Aurora shooter would have gone into a police station with similar intent.

 

[nick daring]

I kinda think the word "coward" is an awkward adjective for the situation too. For me being a coward is when you have something you should do but can't do to fear that you can't overcome. This killer isn't motivated by a failure to overcome a fear.

"pathetic" might be appropriate. Or perhaps "opertunistic" or "predatory". Seems likes new word needs to be invented for this kind of terrible person.

 

[Tan Djarka]

The key problem with the "violent media creates a violent society" is the distinction between method and motivation. A distinction that some are unable or unwilling to make.

Spanking? You can cite all the studies you want. Most of them were probably done for the purpose of supporting a conclusion, not arriving at it. The simple fact is it's the choice of the parent. Spanking, so long as it does not descend into physical abuse, is not bad. Refraining from spanking may seem like the humane choice, but the truth is you can't reason with a three year old. Corporal punishment has it's place. I'm not talking about a "five across the eyes" approach, but a little swat on the behind to discourage certain behaviours for a child too young to appreciate the reasons is not unacceptable.

How may of you went to a religious or private school where corporal punishment was administered? And you came away from the experience believing a) Spanking is the correct course of action, b) Spanking is mean spirited and wrong, c) To spank or not to spank is largely a situationally dependent decision and no blanket policy can account for everything?

Well, I lean toward "c". Although considering the Christian school I went to for one year, corporal punishment did seem a little mean spirited and retialiatory. This coming from a religion that recommends "turning the other cheek". Yeah, turn the other cheek, you're about to get another from the "board of education". In retrospect, that does seem a bit like abuse.

 

[Kerr Avon]

Spanking, in of itself, so long as it does not descend into physical abuse, is not bad. Refraining from spanking may seem like the humane choice, but the truth is you can't reason with a three year old.

Yup. :thumbsup

 

[Mullreel]

one more point about desensitizing is that you need to think out of the box. Most people think of video games and TV but you can desensitize people through other means too. If you go back in history and have 7 year olds out slaughtering animals it could also desensitize a person.

A child in the 1700-1800s would have been much more accustom to killing things for REAL than a kid now. A kid now might watch graphic violence on TV but no be able to gut a deer.

just food for thought

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Relative to developed nations, yes, it does.

No it doesn't. They're comparing straight crimes among countries. They aren't taking into account that the U.S. has more privately owned firearms than any other countries. It would be like saying more female American drivers kill people than female drivers in Saudi Arabia. There are a lot more female American drivers and none in Saudi Arabia so the stats aren't directly comparable like that.

 

[jlee562]

Spanking? You can cite all the studies you want. Most of them were probably done for the purpose of supporting a conclusion, not arriving at it.

Sorry no. This is insulting to anyone who dedicates their life and professional career to science and the scientific method.

If you would like to post a specific methodological criticism, be my guest. Otherwise, this is simply unfounded speculation based on your own confirmation bias.

 

[jlee562]

No it doesn't. They're comparing straight crimes among countries. They aren't taking into account that the U.S. has more privately owned firearms than any other countries. It would be like saying more female American drivers kill people than female drivers in Saudi Arabia. There are a lot more female American drivers and none in Saudi Arabia so the stats aren't directly comparable like that.

And your background in social science is what again....?

Sorry, in spite of how much you would like to believe that it's not true, per capita statistics are entirely valid for comparison.

You assume, in your rebuttal above, that crime is directly correlated to rates of gun ownership. This is an a-priori assumption (and presumably not an assumption that one who favors less restrictive gun laws would hold).

In fact, we can quite easily demonstrate that your premise is false.

Here's a listing of countries going by guns per capita:
Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This list shows guns per 100 people. The US ranks #1, with 88.8/100. Firearm related deaths is 10.27/100,000.

Now, let's go back to the list of firearm related deaths:
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top country on that list is Columbia with 51.77 deaths per 100,000.

So what's Columbia's gun ownership rate? 5.9/100.

The next country which appears on both lists is Switzerland. Switzerland has a gun ownership rate of 45.7/100, they're ranked 4th in gun ownership rates. Firearm related death rate? 6.4/100

You are right to assert that these statistics don't illuminate the relationship between gun ownership rates and firearm related deaths. But you're wrong to assert that they cannot be compared because of gun ownership rates. There is no linear correlation between the two.

 

[crabra comander]

jlee, go and explain this to the government at once!!

 

[jlee562]

jlee, go and explain this to the government at once!!

Not sure I grasp your meaning my friend.

 

[NAZGÛL]

Its part of military service to have a gun at home in Switzerland. Correct me if Im wrong, but they cant have ammo (would be collected when needed), and you cant carry it without a permit, as is only issued for security work. Its not a "Im a cool cowboy with a big gun ready to shoot anyone attacking me" thing.